Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Victorino Magat Jr. vs Court of Appeals and Santiago Guerrero G.R. No. 124221. August 4, 2000.



Concept:
Article 1267. When the service has become so difficult as
to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the
obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.
Facts:
·         Guerrero is the President and Chairman of the “Guerrero Transport Services” (GTS), a single proprietorship. IN 1972, the GTS won a bidding to operate a fleet of taxicabs in Subic. As the highest bidder, Guerrero was required to have four door, four wheel, radio controlled, meter controlled and sedans taxi services.
·         Guerrero and Magat, General Manager of the Spectrum Electronic Laboratories, executed a letter-contract for the purchase of transceivers at $77,620.59 FOB, Yokohoma. Magat was to deliver within the 60-90 days after receiving from the Guerrero the assigned frequency.  Magat then contacted his Japanese supplier (Koide & Co., Ltd.) and placed an order for the transceivers.
·         On Sept. 22, 1972, in the event of the Martial Law, the then President Marcos issued the Letter of Instructions (LOI) no. 1 which stated: SEIZURE AND CONTROL OF ALL PRIVATELY OWNED NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, RADIO AND TELEVISION FACILITIES AND ALL OTHER MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION.”, said LOI was for the prevention of Propaganda actions against the government.
·         On Sept. 25, 1972. Pursuant to the LOI, the Radio Control Office issued Administrative Circular no. 4, which stated: “SUSPENDING THE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR RADIO STATION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND FOR PERMITS TO OWN AND/OR POSSESS RADIO TRANSMITTERS OR TRANSCEIVERS”. said circular suspended the sale and purchase of radio transmitters or transceivers.
·         The permit to import the transceivers was denied because of the Martial Law
·         Guerrero was not able to obtain the necessary letter of credit. He then did not continue with the contract.

Issue: W/ON there is a breach of contract

Held: No. The law provides that when the service has become so difficult as
to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part. Here in the case, the denial of permit to import resulted the non compliance of the obligation and the inability to secure the letter of credit.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Manila Electric Company vs. The City of Assessor and City Treasurer of Lucena City, GR No. 166102 dated August 5, 2015 (Protest)

  Facts: ·          MERALCO is a private corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws to operate as a public utility engaged i...