G.R. No. 141258 - Sarmiento vs. Spouses Sun-Cabrido

Case Summary (G.R. No. 141258)

Factual Background

In April 1994 Tomasa Sarmiento asked a friend to find a jeweler to reset a pair of diamond earrings into two gold rings and sent an intermediary, Tita Payag, with the jewelry to Dingdings Jewelry Shop, owned and managed by Sps. Luis & Rose Sun-Cabrido. The shop accepted the job for P400 and petitioner furnished 12 grams of gold for the new settings. When Payag returned with one earring, respondent Maria Lourdes (Marilou) Sun attempted to dismount the diamond but, unable to do so, asked the shop’s goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to perform the task. Santos removed the stone by twisting the setting with pliers and the diamond broke. Petitioner thereafter purchased a replacement diamond for P30,000. Attempts at settlement before the barangay lupon failed.

MTCC Disposition

The MTCC of Tagbilaran City rendered judgment in favor of Tomasa Sarmiento, ordering Sps. Luis & Rose Sun-Cabrido to pay P30,000 as actual damages, P3,000 as moral damages, P5,000 as attorney’s fees, and P2,000 as litigation expenses, with legal interest of six percent per annum from the date of judgment and twelve percent per annum from finality until paid; the case against Maria Lourdes Sun and defendants’ counterclaim were dismissed.

RTC and Court of Appeals Proceedings

On appeal the RTC, Branch 3, reversed the MTCC and absolved the respondents of contractual liability for the broken diamond. The CA, in its Decision promulgated November 26, 1999, affirmed the RTC judgment, maintaining that the respondents did not assume liability for dismounting the diamonds and that Santos was not an employee of the jewelry shop.

Issues Presented on Review

Petitioner assigned two principal errors: first, that the CA erred in holding that Zenon Santos was not an employee of respondent Rose Sun-Cabrido and thus that the shop could evade liability for his acts; and second, that the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding that the verbal agreement did not include responsibility to answer for any damage occurring during dismounting of the diamonds.

Parties’ Contentions

Tomasa Sarmiento maintained that the verbal contract to reset the earrings necessarily included dismounting the diamonds and that the respondents therefore bore responsibility when the stone was broken. The respondents initially denied any transaction with Payag, later conceding on appeal that they accepted a job to craft the rings but denying that they agreed to dismount the stones and contending that Santos acted as an independent worker responsible for his own negligence.

Findings on Credibility and Contract Formation

The Supreme Court accepted the MTCC’s credibility findings and found the respondents’ shifting positions inconsistent and unpersuasive. The Court relied on contemporaneous acts: Payag brought the mounted earrings to the shop so measurements could be taken; Marilou examined the stones and did not instruct Payag to have them dismounted elsewhere; the shop charged P400 and later called the petitioner to return for the settings. The Court concluded that a perfected verbal contract arose between the petitioner, through Payag, and Dingdings Jewelry Shop, through Marilou, which necessarily included the dismounting required to reset the diamonds, and that obligations arising from contracts are binding between the parties under Article 1159 of the Civil Code.

Employment Relationship and Employer Liability

The Court examined whether Santos was an employee of Dingdings Jewelry Shop and concluded that he performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the business, having worked at the shop for about six months and accepted job orders by referral from the respondents, while Payag had transacted with the shop on prior occasions. Applying Article 280 of the Labor Code and the factual matrix, the Court held Santos to be an employee for purposes of liability, making the shop responsible for his negligent acts committed in the course of performing the contractual obligation.

Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, and Standard of Diligence

The Court found that Santos acted negligently in dismounting the diamond by using pliers instead of the customary miniature wire saw, a trade practice for removing precious gems, and that this improper method caused the breakage. The Court invoked res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the circumstances and reiterated that the obligor must exercise the diligence required by the nature of the obligation and the circumstances under Article 1173

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 141258)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Tomasa Sarmiento was the petitioner who filed a complaint for damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tagbilaran City.
Sps. Luis & Rose Sun-Cabrido and Maria Lourdes Sun were the private respondents who owned or worked at Dingdings Jewelry Shop.
The MTCC ruled in favor of Tomasa Sarmiento and awarded actual and moral damages plus attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, reversed the MTCC decision and absolved the respondents of liability.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and declared the private respondents not liable for damages.
The petitioner filed a petition for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Tomasa Sarmiento alleged that she was requested to reset a pair of diamond earrings into two gold rings for Dra. Virginia Lao and that she sent Tita Payag with the earrings to Dingdings Jewelry Shop.
The job order was purportedly accepted for P400 and petitioner provided twelve grams of gold for the ring settings.
Maria Lourdes (Marilou) Sun examined and attempted to dismount a diamond which she then delegated to goldsmith Zenon Santos.
Zenon Santos clipped the original setting with a pair of pliers and broke the diamond in the process.
Petitioner claimed she purchased a replacement diamond for P30,000 after respondents refused to replace it.

Issues Presented

Whether the private respondents assumed an obligation under the verbal contract to dismount the diamonds from their original settings.
Whether the respondents were liable for damages resulting from the breaking of the diamond.
Whether Zenon Santos was an employee of Dingdings Jewelry Shop for purposes of respondent liability.

Contentions of Parties

The petitioner contended that dismounting the diamonds was an integral part of the job order and that respondents were liable for negligent performance.
The private respondents contended that the contract covered only the crafting of two gold rings and did not include dismounting the stones, and that Santos was an independent worker responsible for his own acts.
The private respondents also denied initial knowledge of Tita Payag and therefore denied contractual relations with the petitioner at trial.

Procedural History

The MTCC rendered judgment for the petitioner and ordered respondents to pay actual damages of P30,000, moral damages of P3,000, attorneys fees of P5,000, litigation expenses of P2,000, and interest.
The RTC reversed the MTCC and absolved respondents from contractual liability.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on November 26, 1999.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and reinstated respondent liability in part.

Findings of Fact

The MTCC found, and the Supreme Court credited, that Dingdings Jewelry Shop accepted the job order for resetting the earrings and charged P400.
The Supreme Court found that Marilou examined the diamond and proceeded to dismount it, and that she then delegated the task to Santos.
The Supreme Court found that Santos had worked at Dingdings Jewelry Shop for about six months and accepted job orders through referrals from the respondents.
The Supre