Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16109)
Facts:
M. D. Taylor v. Uy Tieng Piao and Tan Liuan, G.R. No. 16109. October 02, 1922, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court.On December 12, 1918 Taylor (plaintiff) entered into a two-year employment contract with Tan Liuan & Co. to serve as superintendent of a proposed oil factory in Manila. The contract provided a monthly salary of P600 for the first year and P700 for the second year, plus electric light and water for domestic consumption, and a residence, or in lieu thereof a commutation of P60 per month. The parties agreed that ten expellers (machinery) would be procured from the United States to equip the factory.
The contract contained a resolutory clause stating that if the machinery failed to arrive in Manila within six months the contract "may be cancelled by the party of the second part at its option," provided such cancellation not occur before the six months expired. The machinery did not arrive within the six months and no alternative equipment was supplied. On June 28, 1919 the defendants notified Taylor that they elected to rescind the contract effective June 30, 1919, and he was discharged.
Taylor sued in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila for damages of P13,000 (salary and perquisites due and to become due). The trial court awarded damages (the opinion states the lower court awarded P300). Taylor appealed, arguing the award was inadequate and that the resolutory clause could not be exercised when nonarrival was caused by the defendants' own choice or fault. Defendant Uy Tieng Piao (appealing separately) contended he was not liable as a partner for the hiring decision. The Supreme Court had previously affirmed in a brief opinion; fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the defendants' rescission of the employment contract valid under the contract's resolutory clause, or did Civil Code provisions (notably Articles 1256 and 1119) prevent the defendants from cancelling when the machinery failed to arrive?
- Was Uy Tieng Piao personally liable as a partner of Tan Liuan & Co. for the hiring and the resulting obligation?
- Was the plaintiff entitled to an additional P60 (commutation of house rent for June 1919) in damages ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)