Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ô
c
À
,ÿ
9. @ at in t e year 1964 t e defendant First Farmers Milling Co., Inc., establis ed and
operated a sugar central known as t e First Farmers Sugar Central and for t e crop
years 1964-65 and 1965-66, t e defendants transferred t eir quota "A" allotments to t eir
co-defendant First Farmers Milling Co., Inc. and are actually milling t eir sugar wit t e
said First Farmers Milling Co., Inc., w ic illegal transfer as been made over t e
vigorous protest and objections of t e plaintiff, but wit t e unwarranted, unjustified and
likewise illegal approval of t eir co-defendant t e Sugar Quota Administration;"
... jointly and severally to pay plaintiff actual and exemplary damages of not less t an Fl
million pesos and attorney's fees in t e amount of 101-C of said damages, plus legal
interest from t e filing of t e original complaint, plus costs.
Alt oug it is averred t at t e defendants' acts were done in bad fait , t e Complaint
does not contain any averment of facts s owing t at t e acts were done in t e manner
alleged. Suc a bare statement neit er establis es any rig t or cause of action on t e
part of t e plaintiff-appellant. It is a mere conclusion of law not sustained by declarations
of facts, muc less admitted by defendants-appellees. It does not, t erefore, aid in any
wise t e complaint in setting fort a cause of action. Defendants-appellees are not
fairly apprised of t e act or acts complained of.
Besides, bad fait is never presumed (Civil Code, Art. 527). And, it as been eld t at
"to support a judgment for damages, m m
m
m
mm
."
Plaintiff-appellant's allegation "t at defendants NIDC and PNB ave extended loans to
defendant sugar mill ..., to assist in t e illegal creation and operation of said mill, ence,
a joint tortfeasor in t e trespass of plaintiff's rig ts. ..." is, t erefore, a mere conclusion
not warranted by sufficient facts. o at appears from t e record is t at PNB and NIDC
came into t e picture in t e ordinary and usual course of its business after t e
borrowing entity ad establis ed itself as capable of being treated as a new milling
district (FFMC is officially designated as Mill District No. 49) because it could already
operate and ad its array of ad ering planters. "@ e doing of an act w ic is in itself
perfectly lawful win not render one liable as for a tort, simply because t e unintended
effect of suc act is to enable or assist anot er person to do or accomplis a wrong," X
assuming, of course, t at t ere was suc a wrong.
o RFOR, wit out resolving t e issue in t e main case regarding t e alleged illegal
creation and operation of First Farmers Milling, Co., Inc., t ere aving been no
presentation of evidence as yet in t e lower Court, t e c allenged Order dismissing t e
Amended and Supplemental Complaint against defendants-appellees as well as t e
Order denying reconsideration t ereof, is ereby affirmed, and t e appeal dismissed.
Costs against plaintiff-appellant.
SO ORDRD.
R""'
1 Record on Appeal, Complaint, p. 8.
2 Supplement to Record on Appeal, Amended and Supplemental Complaint. pp. 12-13.
3 Record on Appeal, Answer, pp. 46-47.
4 Alzua and Arnalot vs. Jo nson, 21 P il. 308 (1912): Remitere, et al, vs. Vda. de Yulo, et al., 16 SCRA 251 (1966).
5 Acuña vs. Batac Producers Cooperative, 20 SCRA 526 (1967); Mindanao Realty Corp. vs. Kintanar, et al, 6 SCRA
814 (1962).
6 Reinares vs. Arrastria, 5 SCRA 748 (1962).
7 De Jesus vs. Belarmino, 95 P il. 365 (1954).
8 see Ventura vs. Bernabe, 38 SCRA 587 (1971).
9 La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory vs. (Central Azucarera del Danao, 23 SCRA 686 (1968).
10 Supplement to Record on Appeal, Amended and Supplemental Complaint, p. 15.
11 Alzua and Arnalot vs. Jo nson, supra, p. 383.
12 i., p. 380.
13 Konecny vs. o ensc u , 173 N.o. 901, 188 Iowa 1075; Noll v. Marian, 32 A. 2d 18, 347 Pa. 213 cited in Vol. 1
Cooley on @orts, p. 5 86 CJS 933.