Title
LAMBERT vs. FOX
Case
G.R. No. 7991
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1914
Two stockholders agreed not to sell shares for one year; one breached, triggering a ₱1,000 penalty. Court enforced the contract, upholding the penalty and stock sale restriction as valid.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 7991)

Petitioner

Leon J. Lambert, who seeks enforcement of the agreed‐upon penalty for Fox’s breach of the one-year non-transfer obligation.

Respondent

T. J. Fox, who sold his shares within the prohibited period and defended on the ground that the contract’s purpose had been fulfilled before one year elapsed.

Key Dates

• Early 1911: Incorporation of John R. Edgar & Co., Inc., and execution of the one‐year non-sale agreement.
• October 19, 1911: Fox sells his shares to a competitor, E. C. McCullough & Co.
• January 29, 1914: Decision by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Applicable Law

• Philippine Organic Act of 1902 (organic law under the U.S. insular government)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815), Articles 1152–1155 (on stipulations of penalties and liquidated damages)

Facts

Lambert and Fox promised in writing not to “sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any part of their present holdings” in John R. Edgar & Co., Inc., for one year from the date of their agreement, with a P1,000 penalty for breach unless prior written consent were obtained. Despite protest and an offer to sell his shares to Lambert minus the P1,000 penalty, Fox sold to McCullough, a direct competitor. The trial court held that the contract’s objective (financial stability) was achieved before one year, so Fox’s obligation ended early and dismissed Lambert’s complaint.

Issue

Whether (1) the one-year non-transfer provision must be strictly enforced as written, (2) a stipulated penalty under the Civil Code may be recovered without proof of actual damage, and (3) the restriction on selling shares improperly restrains trade.

Construction and Duration of the Agreement

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that contractual intent is determined first and foremost by the clear language of the agreement. Since the parties expressly fixed the term at one year, the Court refused to rewrite or shorten it. No ambiguity justified interpretive construction; courts apply plain words unless impossible or inadequate.

Enforceability of the Penalty Clause

Under Articles 1152–1155 of the Civil Code, competent parties may freely stipulate penalties or liquidated damages. In Philippine jurisprudence, penalties and liquidated damages are treated identically: the obligee need not prove actual loss. The only circumstance permitting judicial red

...continue reading

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