Case Digest (G.R. No. 3387)
Facts:
T. Sugo and K. Shibata v. George Green et al., G.R. No. 3387, November 22, 1906, the Supreme Court (En Banc), Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiffs-appellees T. Sugo and K. Shibata were subcontractors who on April 20, 1904 entered into a written contract with defendants-appellants George Green et al. by which the plaintiffs agreed to perform all masonry, carpentry, roofing and incidental work for fifteen lieutenants' quarters (part of a larger 65-building Army contract at Fort William McKinley). The defendants agreed to furnish and deliver all necessary materials to the building sites; plaintiffs were to complete the work within eight months, to begin not later than May 10, 1904, and were subject to a $25 per day forfeiture for delay except where delay was “caused by delay in the transportation of building material.” Compensation was set at 1,400 pesos (Mexican currency) per building, payable in installments during progress.
On March 16, 1904 the defendants had contracted with the constructing quartermaster of the United States Army for erection of the 65 buildings. Because the defendants failed to comply with that primary contract, on January 4, 1905 the commanding general prohibited the defendants from continuing performance — a prohibition which, in turn, prevented the plaintiffs from continuing their subcontract. The plaintiffs asserted that, but for the defendants’ failure to furnish materials (and transportation of same) as required, they would have completed the work within the contractual period.
At trial the plaintiffs produced evidence showing repeated delays in material delivery; the defendants produced a letter (undated but admitted by defendants and said to have been handed in November 1904) acknowledging lack of adequate transportation and stating that more time would be allowed pending government action. The trial judge found that the plaintiffs were unable to comply with their contract because the defendants failed to supply transportation and materials as required, and that 64% of the contractual work had been completed when plaintiffs ceased work. The court computed recovery pro rata: 64% of the total contract sum (21,000 pesos) equals 13,440 pesos, less payments already made (9,989.25 pesos), leaving a balance of 3,450.75 pesos due the plaintiffs.
After the action began one of the partners-plaintiffs died. Defendants moved that the action should be suspended until a personal representative of the deceased partner was appointed, invoking Section 119 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions; the trial court denied that contention. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount found; the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The case reached the Supreme Court by direct review of the judgment of the Court of Fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the death of one partner during the pendency of a partnership action require suspension of proceedings until a personal representative of the deceased partner is appointed under Section 119 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions?
- Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover the unpaid balance for work performed where the defendants' failure to supply materials and transportation — and the consequent government prohibition on the defendants' contract — prevented plaintiffs from completing the subcontract?
- May the Supreme Court consider the plaintiffs' contention that certain credits were improperly allowed against them when the plaintiffs did...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)