2/15/2019 G.R. No. 15026 November 17, 1920 - JOHN G. KNUST v. J. P.

. J. P. MORSE<br /><br />041 Phil 184 : NOVEMBER 1920 - PHILIPPINE SUP…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1920 > November 1920 Decisions > G.R. No. 15026 November
17, 1920 - JOHN G. KNUST v. J. P. MORSE

041 Phil 184:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 15026. November 17, 1920. ]

JOHN G. KNUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. P. MORSE, doing business under the name and style
of ’’French American Import Company", Defendant-Appellant.

Wolfson & Wolfson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cohn & Fisher, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CONTRACTS; BREACH; MASTER AND SERVANT; DAMAGES. — In employments which involve a high
order of service and Some degree of discretion and judgment, it would be unreasonable to regard
employees as subject to the whim and caprice of their employers or as deprived of all right of action to
such a degree as to be liable to lose their places upon every omission to obey orders involving no serious
consequences.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — In an action for breach of contract for labor where the employee is wrongfully
discharged, such employee is entitled to recover damages to the extent of the amount stipulated to be
paid to him by the terms of said contract. This prima facie damage may be reduced, however, by
showing: First, that the person so discharged failed to seek other employment of the same kind in the
same vicinity and that if he had sought such employment he might have obtained it; or, second, that he
actually obtained other employment, for which he received a certain compensation. While it is the duty of
an employee who has been wrongfully discharged to be diligent in seeking other employment of a like
nature in the same vicinity, the burden of showing that he had not complied with this obligation is upon
the defendant. (Aldaz v. Gay [1907], 7 Phil., 268) — rule followed.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The relations between plaintiff and defendant, in the embroidery business, were
governed by contract. Notwithstanding, plaintiff was dismissed by a representative of the defendant
without just cause. Held: That the plaintiff can recover his salary and his share of the profits for the
period of the contract and that no deductions need be made since the employer has not proved either
lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in seeking other employment, or the amount that plaintiff has
earned in the business in which he did engage.

DECISION

MALCOLM, J. :

While counsel have just about exhausted the lexicons in their use of choice adjectives intended to
overwhelm their opponent’s case, the salient facts are few and the applicable principles of law are well
recognized.
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
The action is one to recover damages in the amount of P15,000 for the alleged breach of a contract for
Division services because of dismissal without just cause. The answer alleged that the discharge of plaintiff was

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1920novemberdecisions.php?id=95 1/3
2/15/2019 G.R. No. 15026 November 17, 1920 - JOHN G. KNUST v. J. P. MORSE<br /><br />041 Phil 184 : NOVEMBER 1920 - PHILIPPINE SUP…
justified. The defense further set up a counterclaim for a debt of P8,229.14. The judgment awarded the
plaintiff the sum of P1,169.84, with interest from August 22, 1917, and absolved the plaintiff from the
counterclaim. From this judgment both the plaintiff and the defendant have appealed.

The relations between the plaintiff and the defendant in the embroidery business are governed by a
contract (Exhibits B and C). Notwithstanding, plaintiff was dismissed by the representative of the
defendant on August 8, 1917, on six counts. (Exhibit M.)

On-this issue of fact, the trial court found that the plaintiff had been wrongfully discharged. A painstaking
consideration of the evidence leads us to the same conclusion. In employments such as the one before
us, which involve a high order of services and some degree of discretion and judgment, it would be
unreasonable to regard employees as subject to the whim and caprice of their employers or as deprived
of all right of action to such a degree as to be liable to lose their places upon every omission to obey
orders involving no serious consequences. (Shaver v. Ingham [1886], 58 Mich., 649.)

This brings us to the general consideration of the liability of defendant to plaintiff and to the specific
consideration of plaintiff-appellant’s assignments of error. A number of decisions of this and other courts
have discussed this question. The general rule is nowhere better stated than in Aldaz v. Gay ([1907], 7
Phil., 268), wherein the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, through Mr. Justice Johnson, held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In an action for breach of a contract for labor where the employee is wrongfully discharged, such
employee is entitled to recover damages to the extent of the amount stipulated to be paid to him by the
terms of said contract. This prima facie damage may be reduced, however, by showing: First, that the
person so discharged failed to seek other employment of the same kind in the same vicinity and that if
he had sought such employment he might have obtained it; or, second, that he actually obtained other
employment, for which he received a certain compensation. While it is the duty of an employee who has
been wrongfully discharged to be diligent in seeking other employment of a like nature in the same
vicinity, the burden of showing that he has not complied with this obligation is upon the defendant."
(Syllabus. See also, Hicks v. Manila Hotel Co. [1914], 28 Phil., 325, and Lemoine v. Alkan [1916], 33
Phil., 162.)

November-1920 Jurisprudence
Recurring now to the facts, it is first to be noted that plaintiff was discharged on August 8, 1917, when
his contract should have expired on March 1, 1919. The contract fixed plaintiff’s salary at P500 per
month. It is to be presumed that the salary from August 1 to August 8 had not been paid because
plaintiff was to receive his salary semi-monthly. His share in the profits was calculated by plaintiff and
defendant at P150 a month at the least. Plaintiff’s prima facie damages would thus amount to his salary,
P500 a month, plus P150 a month, or P650 a month for one year and seven months. Total, P12,350. No
deduction from the amount of the wages for the full term need be made since the employer has not
proved either lack of diligence on the part of plaintiff in seeking other employment, or the amount the
plaintiff has earned in the business in which he did engage, that of selling embroidery and hats at retail.

G.R. No. 16347 November 3, 1920 - LALCHAND We agree with plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff should be awarded damages in the amount stipulated
CHATTAMAL, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF in the contract, or P12,350.
CUSTOMS
This leaves for decision defendant-appellant’s eighth and ninth assignments of error concerning the
042 Phil 916
obligation of the plaintiff to satisfy his indebtedness to the company. This contention of the defendant is
G.R. No. 15939 November 5, 1920 - KUAN LOW & correct, as is demonstrated by a perusal of paragraph 12 of the contract of services. The obligation of the
CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE plaintiff became absolute on the same date that the contract ended. His debt of P8,229.14 should,
accordingly be deducted from the damages allowed the plaintiff.
042 Phil 921
The result is, to permit the plaintiff to recover damages for the breach of the contract in the amount of
G.R. No. 16202 November 5, 1920 - COSME P12,350, and to permit the defendant to recoup from the plaintiff his debt to the company of P8,229.14;
MANALO, ET AL. v. MANUEL GUECO or, if we can consider this as in the nature of an accounting between the parties, there is, consequently,
due the plaintiff from the defendant a net amount of P4,120.86.
042 Phil 925
Judgment is reversed, and the plaintiff shall have and recover from the defendant the sum of P4,120.86,
G.R. No. 15825 November 5, 1920 - CARMEN without interest, and without special finding as to costs in either instance. So ordered.
CASTELLVI DE HIGGINS, ET AL. v. GEORGE C.
SELLNER
Mapa, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ., concur.
041 Phil 142

G.R. Nos. 15657 & 15658 November 10, 1920 -

MACARIO FELICIANO v. VICENTA LIMJUCO, ET AL.

041 Phil 147 Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 15656 November 16, 1920 - JESUS VAÑO

v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.
QUICK SEARCH
041 Phil 161

G.R. No. 15141 November 16, 1920 - MANILA

RAILROAD CO. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
041 Phil 163 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 15142 November 16, 1920 - MANILA
RAILROAD CO. v. QUITERIA BUENCONSEJO, ET AL. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
041 Phil 178
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 15026 November 17, 1920 - JOHN G.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
KNUST v. J. P. MORSE
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
041 Phil 184 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. 16887 November 17, 1920 - MIGUEL R. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
CORNEJO v. ANDRES GABRIEL 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
041 Phil 188 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 15628 November 18, 1920 - MANUEL
SORIANO v. OSCAR STERBERG 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
041 Phil 210

IN RE: MAX SHOOP : November 29, 1920 - 041 Phil

213

G.R. No. 15301 November 29, 1920 - FRANCISCO

MISUT GARCIA v. WEST COAST SAN FRANCISCO LIFE Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
INSURANCE COMPANY

041 Phil 258

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1920novemberdecisions.php?id=95 2/3
2/15/2019 G.R. No. 15026 November 17, 1920 - JOHN G. KNUST v. J. P. MORSE<br /><br />041 Phil 184 : NOVEMBER 1920 - PHILIPPINE SUP…
G.R. No. 15774 November 29, 1920 - PILAR C. DE
LIM v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

041 Phil 263

G.R. No. 15895 November 29, 1920 - RAFAEL

ENRIQUEZ v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
CANADA

041 Phil 269

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1920novemberdecisions.php?id=95 3/3