Side comments sa Taguilig v.

CA
so in the case, the petitioner is the engineer who offered the respondent the construction of the windmill system at the cost of P60k w/ 1 yr guarranty. The respondent already paid P45k, and just P15 remained as balance si engineer wanted to collect the balance of P15k. sabi naman ni customer nagbayad na xa dun sa gumawa ng deep well kung saan nakakonek ung windmill system at kung may utang nga sha sa engineer, dapat daw ma-offset un nung defects sa ginawang windmill na nasira nagcollapse nung hinangin nang malakas! sabi naman ni engineer di kasama sa P60k ung construction ng deep well, para lang un sa windmill assembly and installation at di nya kasalanan kung nasira ung windmill kasi in good condition naman daw nya dineliver yun kay customer and nasira un dahil sa typhoon force majeure kaya wala xa liability Trial court: in favor kay engineer: (1) di daw kasama sa contract yung construction of the deep well kasi di naman kasama sa proposals un and (2) walang liability si engineer sa pagkasira ng windmill kasi walang convincing proof na nasira ung windmill because of defect of the construction CA: partially in favor of the customer. (1) kasama daw sa contract yung constructionng well kasi nabanggit daw ung deep well sa parehong proposals; (2) yung P15k kasama na sa P60K so walang utang si customer kay engineer; BUT (3) did daw pede pareconstruct ung windmill Issues:

1. WON kasama ung paggawa ng deep well sa contract. no 2. WON kelangan gawin ni engineer ung windmill ulit. yES so did aw kasama ung construction ng deep well sa contract kasi kahit nabanggit sa contract ung words na deep well and deep well pump, they are introduced by prepositions for and suitable for so sinasabi lang na ung windmill sa proposal compatible with the said types of deep well and does not imply the inclusion of construction of deep wells so kahit daw sinasabi na may letter daw sa subcontractor stating that the payment for the construction of the deepwell would be taken from the P60k, di naman daw prinisent sa court ung letter as evidence and kahit daw verbal ung agreement, bakit naman sasariliin ni engineer un? so sinasabi na as a proof that the construction of the deep well is not part of the contract to construct the windmill, binayaran daw ni customer si Pili, ung subcontractor para sa deep well, at di si engineer. If kasama sa contract un e di sana si engineer na lang nagbayad, ung P15k binayad ni customer kay engineer tapos bahala na si engineer dir in pede sabihin na kinuha lang ni Pili ung bayad na P15k as a representative ni engineer kasi if part xa ng contract, dapat babayaran para dun eh si engineer at di ung subcontractor bahala na dapat si engineer dun so did aw pede magkaroon ng legal na payments made by a third person kasi wala naming contract between engineer and Pili the construction of the well by SPGMI was for the sole account of respondent and that petitioner merely supervised the installation of the well because the windmill was to be connected to it. There is no legal nor factual basis by which this Court can impose upon petitioner an obligation he did not expressly assume nor ratify. in order for a party to claim exemption from liability by reason of fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code the event should be the sole and procimate casue of the loss or desctructed of the object of the contract. walang strong evidence to show that the collapse was due to a fortuituous event kasi di naman napatunayan na may typhoon nung nag-collapse, sabi lang strong wind. E di sha unforeseeable kasi expected naman na may strong winds pag may windmill kasi wind nga ginagamit ng windmill para gumana eh!!! Duh? so presumption of normality pag ang defense e force majeure so walang delay kasi reciprocal obligation. Pag reciprocal obli, di pede compel ung isa to do his part if the other doesnt do his also (or does it but improperly done/ quality not good in this case that party providing the low-quality performance of obli is liable for repairing the performance)