Title
De los Reyes vs. Alojado
Case
G.R. No. 5671
Decision Date
Aug 24, 1910
Veronica Alojado borrowed P67.60 from Benito de los Reyes, agreeing to serve without pay until repayment. She left without repaying, and Reyes sued. Courts ruled her service agreement void, offset her debt with unpaid wages, and found her owed P2.43.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 5671)

Key Dates

Loan Agreement: January 22, 1905
Alojado’s Departure: March 12, 1906
Justice of the Peace Judgment: April 14, 1906
First Instance Appeal and Order: July 16, 1906
First Instance Final Judgment: November 21, 1906
Supreme Court Decision Date: August 24, 1910

Applicable Law

– Civil Code (Articles 1170, 1754 on obligations; Articles 1583–1585 on domestic service)
– Police Regulations of September 9, 1848 (prohibiting usurious conduct toward servants)

Facts

Reyes advanced P67.60 to Alojado to pay her debt to a third party, on condition she serve in his household without remuneration until repayment. He later extended additional advances totaling P11.97. Alojado left his service on March 12, 1906, without repaying the loans and without compensation for her labor.

Procedural History

  1. Justice of the Peace: Entered judgment on April 14, 1906, ordering Alojado to pay P79.57 or return to service if insolvent.
  2. Appeal to Court of First Instance: Plaintiff moved to dismiss appeal as late; motion denied because notification occurred April 16 and appeal filed four days later. Reyes amended complaint to include the P11.97 advances.
  3. First Instance Final Judgment (Nov. 21, 1906): Absolved Alojado, awarded her P2.43—balance of wages due—and costs against Reyes. Reyes’ motion for new trial denied; bill of exceptions filed.

Issue

Whether the contract to render domestic service without remuneration in lieu of loan repayment is enforceable, and whether Alojado must repay the loans under that condition.

Analysis

  1. Obligation to repay the advances (P67.60 and P11.97) is undisputed: they constitute positive civil debts under Articles 1170 and 1754 of the Civil Code.
  2. The stipulation of gratuitous domestic service as security is void as contrary to law and morality. Domestic hire must include remuneration, and any contract for absolute gratuity would amount to a form of slavery, prohibited by Civil Code Articles 1583–1585.
  3. Police regul

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.