Case Digest (G.R. No. 117190)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 117190)
Facts:
Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117190, January 02, 1997, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jacinto M. Tanguilig, doing business as J.M.T. Engineering and General Merchandising, contracted with respondent Vicente Herce Jr. in April–May 1987 to construct and install a windmill system for P60,000.00, with a one-year guaranty from completion and acceptance. Respondent paid P30,000.00 as down payment and P15,000.00 as installment, leaving a balance of P15,000.00.When respondent failed to pay the remaining P15,000.00, petitioner filed suit on 14 March 1988 to collect the balance. In his answer respondent denied owing the balance, asserting he had paid P15,000.00 to San Pedro General Merchandising, Inc. (SPGMI) for construction of a deep well to which the windmill would be connected and that this payment should be credited against the contract price. Respondent further alleged that defects in the windmill caused its collapse after a strong wind, which should offset any indebtedness.
The trial court found for petitioner, holding that the construction of the deep well was not part of the windmill contract as shown by the written proposals and that there was no clear and convincing proof that construction defects caused the collapse. The Court of Appeals reversed: it concluded the deep well was included (relying on the mention of "deep well" in both proposals and testimony by SPGMI’s proprietor), applied respondent’s payment to extinguish the balance, rejected petitioner’s force-majeure claim, and ordered petitioner to reconstruct the windmill under the one-year guaranty. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied, and he sought relief before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the agreement to construct the windmill system include the installation of a deep well?
- Is petitioner obliged to reconstruct the windmill after its collapse under the contractual one-year guaranty, or was he excused by fortuitous event/force majeure?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)