Title
Sarmiento vs. Spouses Sun-Cabrido
Case
G.R. No. 141258
Decision Date
Apr 9, 2003
Petitioner sought diamond resetting at respondents' jewelry shop; employee negligently broke the diamond. SC held respondents liable for damages due to employee negligence and contractual obligation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10104)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of Transaction
    • In April 1994, Petitioner Tomasa Sarmiento was requested by Dr. Virginia Lao to reset a pair of diamond earrings into two gold rings. She provided 12 grams of gold and paid P400 to Dingdingas Jewelry Shop, owned and managed by spouses Luis and Rose Sun-Cabrido.
    • Petitioner sent her representative, Tita Payag, to the shop to deliver the earrings and finalize the job order.
  • Dismounting and Breakage of Diamond
    • Three days later, Payag returned one .33-carat diamond earring; respondent Maria Lourdes (Marilou) Sun attempted to dismount it but referred the task to goldsmith Zenon Santos.
    • Santos used pliers instead of the customary wire saw, causing the diamond to fracture. Upon respondents’ refusal to replace it, Petitioner purchased a replacement at P30,000 and demanded reimbursement.
  • Denials and Judicial Proceedings
    • Rose Cabrido denied any transaction with Payag; Marilou admitted knowing Payag but denied accepting the job; Santos claimed to be an independent worker.
    • After unsuccessful barangay mediation, Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 2339 (MTCC, Tagbilaran City) and won P30,000 compensatory, P3,000 moral, P5,000 attorney’s fees, and P2,000 litigation expenses. The RTC reversed; the CA affirmed; Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Employment Status and Vicarious Liability
    • Whether goldsmith Zenon Santos was an employee of Dingdingas Jewelry Shop under Labor Code Article 280, thus rendering respondents vicariously liable for his negligence.
  • Scope of Contractual Obligation
    • Whether the verbal contract to craft gold rings mounted with diamonds included the dismounting of the stones from their original settings, making respondents liable for breakage.
  • Entitlement to Damages
    • Whether Petitioner is entitled to actual and moral damages due to respondents’ negligence or gross neglect in performing the contractual service.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.