Case Digest (G.R. No. 117190) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Jacinto M. Tanguilig, doing business as J.M.T. Engineering and General Merchandising, petitioner entered into a written contract in May 1987 with respondent Vicente Herce Jr. for the supply, assembly, installation, and guaranty of a windmill system at Herce’s Laguna property for ₱60,000, payable by a ₱30,000 down payment, a ₱15,000 installment, and a ₱15,000 balance. Upon completion and acceptance, the parties stipulated a one-year guaranty. After Herce failed to pay the remaining ₱15,000, petitioner filed a complaint in March 1988 before the trial court to collect the unpaid balance. Herce countered that he had already paid the ₱15,000 to San Pedro General Merchandising, Inc. (“SPGMI”), which constructed a deep well to which the windmill was to be connected, and that the cost should be credited against his debt. He also asserted that the windmill’s collapse due to structural defects entitled him to an offset. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, finding that neither Case Digest (G.R. No. 117190) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Contract Formation and Payments
- April 1987: Petitioner Jacinto M. Tanguilig, trading as J.M.T. Engineering and General Merchandising, offered to construct a windmill system for respondent Vicente Herce Jr. for ₱60,000.00, with a one-year guaranty from completion and acceptance.
- Respondent paid ₱30,000.00 as down payment and ₱15,000.00 as an installment, leaving a remaining balance of ₱15,000.00.
- Initiation of Lawsuit and Defenses
- March 14, 1988: Petitioner filed a complaint to collect the ₱15,000.00 balance.
- Respondent pleaded that he had already paid ₱15,000.00 to San Pedro General Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI) for constructing the deep well to which the windmill was to be connected and sought to offset defects in the windmill system that caused its collapse after a strong wind.
- Trial Court Findings
- The trial court found that the construction of the deep well was not part of the windmill contract, based on the content of petitioner’s letter-proposals.
- It held there was no clear proof that the windmill collapsed due to defective construction and attributed the collapse to force majeure.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that the deep well installation was included in the agreement (citing mention of “deep well” in proposals and testimony of SPGMI’s proprietor).
- It applied respondent’s ₱15,000.00 payment to SPGMI against his debt to petitioner and ordered petitioner to reconstruct the windmill under the one-year guaranty, rejecting the force majeure defense.
Issues:
- Whether the contract to construct a windmill system included the installation of a deep well.
- Whether petitioner is obliged to reconstruct the windmill after its collapse under the one-year guaranty.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)