Case Digest (G.R. No. 8312)
Facts:
Uy Tam and Uy Yet v. Thomas Leonard et al., G.R. No. 8312. March 29, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Trent, J., writing for the Court.
This is an action by Uy Tam and Uy Yet (plaintiffs/appellants), materialmen who furnished materials to contractors, against the individual sureties (including Thomas Leonard) and the City of Manila (defendants/appellees). The underlying transaction was a contract (dated January 12, 1911) by which R. C. Hosty and W. W. Brown agreed to furnish crushed rock to the City of Manila for one year; Hosty and Brown executed a penal bond to the City, with several persons as sureties. The bond contained a clause that the principals “shall promptly make all payments to all persons supplying them labor or materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract,” and a provision specifying where suit on the bond might be brought and how service might be effected.
The plaintiffs alleged they furnished materials to Hosty and Brown for performance of the contract, that they notified the sureties of their acceptance of the bond’s conditions relating to laborers and materialmen, and that the City of Manila refused to join in the action to collect the sums claimed; the City was therefore joined as a party defendant pro forma. No damages were sought from the City. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May third-party materialmen enforce a stipulation in a contractor’s bond under the second paragraph of Article 1257 of the Civil Code (i.e., does the bond create a stipulation pour autrui enforceable by the plaintiffs)?
- If a stipulation pour autrui is asserted, does the language of the bond in this case manifest the clear intent of the parties to confer an enforceable benefit on the materialmen, or is any benefit merely in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)