The plaintiff, F. W. Maage, is a resident of Talisay, Occidental Negros.  The Sarangani  Cattle Co., Inc., is a domestic corporation, with its principal office in the same place.

January 1,  1922, the defendant entered into a written contract of employment with the Cattle Company to be its general manager for a period of five years, and was placed in charge of the hacienda of the company at Glan, Cotabato. It is then alleged that  after the  signing of the contract, the defendant entered into an agreement with Maage to sell all of his stock and interest in the company, by reason of which  his  contract  with the  company should  be cancelled Maage is one of the principal stockholders of the corporation, and that he paid to the defendant the purchase price in full of all of defendant's interest in the corporation, in consideration of which, defendant was to surrender his  contract with  the company.  That at the time of the making of this contract, it was agreed that the defendant should temporarily remain in the employ of the company until the trial of a criminal ease which was  then pending against him for the crime  of murder.   That in many and different ways, the defendant has violated the terms of his original contract.  That on September  1, 1923, and  after defendant's trial in the criminal charge, he was notified by the  plaintiff that his services were no longer  required, and that he should surrender his position and quit the premises of the company, which  he refused to do.  That plaintiffs are informed  and believe that the defendant is about to destroy certain property now in his possession and otherwise to commit a nuisance.  That by reason of defendant's acts, plaintiffs  were damaged in the sum of P5,000, for which amount, plaintiffs pray judgment, and that a preliminary injunction be issued restraining  him  from intefering  with plaintiffs' property, and for a cancellation of the contract in question.

For  answer the defendant made a general  and specific denial  of all  of the material allegations  of the complaint, and as a counterclaim alleges the execution of the original contract for the period of five years with a salary of P600 per month  for the first three years, P700 a month for the remaining  two, and a bonus of P1 per head on all cattle branded by the company after the first three years.  That there is  due from the  plaintiff,  Cattle  Company,  to  the defendant for and oh account of earned salary P4,631.14, which the company refused to pay.  As  a second counter- claim, defendant alleges that he was arbitrarily and without reason  discharged in violation of his contract, to his damage in the amount of his salary from November 30, 1923, to December 81, 1926, in the sum of P24,000, and for a bonus of P5,000, for all of which he prays a corresponding judgment against the  Cattle  Company.

For  reply to the new  matter alleged,  plaintiffs made a general and specific denial.

Upon such issues the lower court found as a fact that the dismissal of the defendant was justified  and sustained by the evidence, and that plaintiffs had failed to prove any damages, and rendered a corresponding judgment in favor of the  plaintiffs.   It also rendered judgment  in favor  of the defendant for the amount of P4,631.14 for and on account of salary earned by the defendant,  and for which he had not been paid, and  dismissed his second counterclaim for want of proof.

From that judgment,  plaintiffs appeal and assign the following errors:

"1. The court erred in  rendering judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant for the sum of P4,631.14, and  in hot rendering judgment  against the defendant in favor of plaintiffs for P681.07, the amount of defendant's overdraft.

"2. The court erred in  not rendering judgment against the defendant  in favor of plaintiffs  for  damages to the extent of P5,000.

"3. The court erred in not admitting all of plaintiffs' depositions."

The defendant appeals and assigns the following errors:

"I. The lower court erred in declaring that the dismissal of the defendant W.  H. Anderson by F.  W. Maage was justified.

"II. The lower court erred in declaring that the defendant abandoned his work with the Sarangani Cattle Co., Inc., and went to Australia for the purpose of doing some work for other people and not for  the company.

"III. The lower court erred in not awarding to defendant damages as alleged and prayed for in his  second counter-claim.

"IV. The lower  court erred in not granting the new trial requested  by the defendant."

JOHNS, J.:

The evidence that the defendant breached his contract with the Cattle Company, and that it was fully justified in terminating it is  both clear and convincing.  It also tends to show that the cancellation of the contract was one of the considerations for the purchase of defendant's stock by the plaintiff Maage.  The trial court found as a fact that there is a failure of proof on the  question of  damages which plaintiffs sustained, by reason  of the breach of the contract by the defendant.

It appears that during  his employment, the defendant maltreated a Moro "by giving  some blows with  his fist," as a result of which several hours later, the Moro was found dead  at a distance of about 200 meters from the place where it  occurred.  For  this  an information  was  filed against the defendant charging  him  with the crime  of murder, upon  which he was tried.   In the making of his defense, a large number of witnesses were required to  go from  Buayan to Cotabato and attend  the trial, and that the compensation and expense of such witnesses from August 21, 1923, to October 1.5, 1923, amounted to P2,355.20.  That in addition the defendant employed an attorney at an agreed compensation  of P1,500, all of which he charged to  the company.   The defendant also charged the company with the expense of a trip which he made to Manila  and return amounting to P295.75.  It further appears that in violation of his instructions, the defendant kept  assistant  general manager Taylor on the payroll, and  charged his salary to the company.   Also that the plaintiffs furnished and  advanced to  the defendant's lawful wife upon her urgent request the sum of P681.07.

The defendant claims that he  had authority  from Mr. Clark to charge the expenses of the  trial to the company, and that it was for  such reason, he made the charge.  The company was not a party  to that criminal action, and the plaintiff being a corporation, the  authority of the  defendant to pay the amount of those charges with the money of the corporation should be clear, definite  and certain,  and authorized by  the  corporation itself.  Upon  that point, there  is a  failure of proof.

The expenses of that trial, as shown by the corporate books, amounted to		P3,855.20
The trip to Manila and return		295.75
Money advanced to defendant's wife		681.07
		-----------
	Or a total of	4,832.02

The amount of defendant's unpaid salary, as alleged  in his first counter claim was P4,631.14.  Such amounts do not include the salary  paid to Taylor as assistant general manager in violation of instructions.

All things  considered, the judgment of the lower court in favor  of the plaintiff is in  all things and respects  affirmed, and the judgment against the plaintiff, Cattle Company, and in favor of the defendant for the sum of P4,631.14 is reversed, and in all other respects affirmed,  with costs in favor of the plaintiffs.  So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez,  and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.