CASE Digest NO.

FACTS:

On October 22, 1969, a three- way vehicular accident occurred involving a car owned and
driven by petitioner Edgardo Mendoza, a private jeep owned and driven by respondent Rodolfo
Salazar, and a gravel and sand truck owned by respondent Felipino Timbol and driven by Freddie
Montoya As a consequence of said mishap, two separate Informations for Reckless Imprudence
Causing Damage to Property were filed against Rodolfo Salazar and Freddie Montoya with the
CFI of Bulacan. The jeep-owner-driver was absolved of any liability, both civil and criminal, by the
trial court in view of its findings that the collision between between Salazar’s jeep and petitioner’s
car was the result of the former having been bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Neither
was petitioner awarded damages as he was not a complainant against truck-driver Montoya but only
against jeep-owner-driver Salazar. After the termination of the criminal cases, petitioner Mendoza filed a
civil case against respondents Salazar and Timbol for the damages sustained by his car as a result of the
collision involving their vehicles.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for damagesbased on quasi-
delict against private respondents

HELD:
Yes.
CASE Digest NO. 2

FACTS:

On August 27, 1902, Don Vicente Perez filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance
of Laguna, asking for the rate of compensation for the services he rendered being an English interpreter
between the defendant and the military authorities at Tabacalera Company, and that, in view of the
circumstance of the case, judgment be rendered in his favour for such sum. The complaint also asked that
the defendant be condemned to the payment of damages in the sum of $3,200, gold, together with the
costs of suit. Petitioner also asked that defendant Eugenio Pomar be condemned to pay damages. In
relation to the complaint, it was alleged that Pomar, as general agent of the Compañia General de Tabacos,
verbally requested the plaintiff on December, 8, 1901, to act as interpreter until May 31, 1902. The plaintiff
during this period held himself in readiness to render services whenever required. On this account, his
private business, and especially a soap factory established in the capital, was entirely abandoned.
However, Pomar assured him that the said company always generously repaid services. He even gave
Perez flattering promises of employment with the company but the latter refused. These statements were
made in the absence of witness. Hence, his only proof as to the same was Mr. Pomar's word as a gentleman

On the other hand, defendant filed an answer asking for the dismissal of the complaint. He denied
all the allegations against him. Also, he contended that Perez borrowed money from him for his business,
and that he delivered 36 arrobas of oil worth $106, and three packages of resin for use in coloring his soap.
Respondent only accompanied him in his trips because he wanted to extend his business relations, and
Pomar occasionally accompanied him because of friendship, and especially because of the free
transportation given him. Because of that Perez acted as interpreter in the conferences by his own free will,
without Pomar requesting him, so no legal relation between him and the company existed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is oblige to pay the continued service rendered by the petitioner.

HELD:

Yes. Based from the testimonies at trial, it appears that Perez indeed rendered services as an
English interpreter. He obtained passes and accompanied Pomar in his journeys in Laguna. But, it doesn’t
appear on record whether Perez was at the disposal of Pomar for 6 months. No contract was filed or any
other innominate contract, but there was tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of services.

Pomar accepted the service, and Perez rendered it expecting that the benefit would be reciprocal.
An obligation arises from this scenario. There was an innominate contract facio ut des. No salary was fixed
for the services, so the court must determine its value, to be determined by the custom and frequent use
of the place in which such services were rendered. The court ruled to Perez. Pomar should pay 200
Mexican pesos, less 50 pesos as to the costs of the suit.
CASE Digest NO. 3