This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-09-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It may be recalled that as of November 13, 1991 the contract had already been terminated for failure of the plaintiff [CVC and Cembrano] to complete deliveries on the original period. Since the request for extension by the plaintiff was denied, the defendant [City] was no longer obliged to accept any delivery as said acceptance can be considered a waiver or abandonment of the right to rescind. The obligation of plaintiff to make complete delivery, according to the contract, expired on November 13, 1991. The law is clear that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. The power to rescind is given to the injured party which, in this case is the defendant. The plaintiff being a party who did not perform the undertaking which [sic] he was bound by the terms of the agreement to perform, it is not entitled to insist upon the performance of the contract by the defendant or recover damages by reason of the breach.[16] Cembrano appealed the decision to the CA. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55049. The CA rendered judgment reversing the decision of the trial court and ordered the City of Butuan to pay its liability to Cembrano and CVC. The dispositive portion of the Decision[17] reads:IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendant City of Butuan is directed to pay the plaintiffs the total sum of P926,845.00 in accordance with the above computation, with 6% interest as of the date this decision attains finality. | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The City Legal Officer filed a Manifestation,[34] also dated November 29, 2002, that it had already paid the P926,845.00 to CVC, through Pag-Ong, its President. Go filed an "Urgent Motion (To Direct Sheriffs To Garnish Defendant's Bank Account),"[35] alleging that the payment by the City of Butuan to Monico Pag-Ong was not in compliance with the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. It was, likewise, asserted that the creditors under the CA decision were CVC Unit VI and Cembrano, not Plaza or Pag-Ong. It insisted that the payment made by the City to Pag-Ong did not discharge its obligation to Cembrano. It was, likewise, asserted that the creditors under the CA decision were CVC Unit IV and Cembrano, not Plaza or Pag-Ong. It insisted that the payment made by the City to Pag-Ong did not discharge its obligation to Cembrano. It was alos averred that the logging operations of CVC and Triumph-Timber Corporation were consolidated in one timber concession license, and that the two corporations conducted the operations under an independent and separate entity which was CVC Unit VI. The plaintiffs-movants prayed that: | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[46] The CA ruled that, under the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049, either respondent Cembrano or Pag-Ong could receive the award of P926,845.00 for the respondent CVC. Moreover, the City of Butuan acted in good faith in delivering the check to the President of CVC. Inasmuch as it had already remitted the judgment debt, the City was released of its obligation under the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049; hence, the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the garnishment of the bank account of petitioner Butuan City with the DBP, and in ordering the bank to release P490,609.955 to Atty. Dollfuss R. Go, and the remaining half to Cembrano. | |||||