Case Digest (G.R. No. 114791)
Facts:
Nancy Go and Alex Go, Petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hermogenes Ong and Jane C. Ong, G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Private respondents Hermogenes and Jane Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. Petitioners provided video coverage of the wedding for P1,650.00. The newlyweds attempted three times before their honeymoon to claim the processed videotape, but it was not yet ready; the parties agreed the tape would be ready when the couple returned from their honeymoon. Upon their return, the Ongs discovered that the videotape had been erased and could no longer be delivered.
On September 23, 1981, the Ongs filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. After a protracted trial the trial court ordered rescission of the agreement and adjudged petitioners jointly and severally liable to the Ongs for reimbursement of the down payment (P450.00), moral damages (P75,000.00), exemplary damages (P20,000.00), attorneys’ fees (P5,000.00), litigation expenses (P2,000.00), and costs.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on September 14, 1993 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners then brought the case to the Supreme Court. They argued below that they were merely agents of a third party, Pablo Lim, who owned the equipment and thus liability rested on Lim; they also maintained the erasure was not in bad faith but followed a business pra...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding petitioners liable, or were petitioners mere agents of Pablo Lim such that liability lies with Lim (agency/identity of contracting party)?
- Did the erasure of the videotape justify denying damages because it followed a permissible business practice, or were petitioners liable for damages including moral and exemplary damages?
- Was petitioner Alex Go jointly and severally liable with his...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)