Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 367 views

    Pamintuan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elaiza Ong
    1) Mariano Pamintuan agreed to sell plastic sheetings imported from Japan to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. but only delivered a portion of inferior quality sheetings. 2) Yu Ping Kun sued to enforce a liquidated damages clause in the contract. 3) The Supreme Court held that compensatory damages can be awarded in addition to liquidated damages if the obligor is found to be guilty of fraud in fulfilling the contract, as Pamintuan was found to be through his incomplete and overpriced delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pamintuan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elaiza Ong
    367 views1 page
    1) Mariano Pamintuan agreed to sell plastic sheetings imported from Japan to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. but only delivered a portion of inferior quality sheetings. 2) Yu Ping Kun sued to enforce a liquidated damages clause in the contract. 3) The Supreme Court held that compensatory damages can be awarded in addition to liquidated damages if the obligor is found to be guilty of fraud in fulfilling the contract, as Pamintuan was found to be through his incomplete and overpriced delivery.

    Original Description:

    U

    Original Title

    Pamintuan v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mariano Pamintuan agreed to sell plastic sheetings imported from Japan to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. but only delivered a portion of inferior quality sheetings. 2) Yu Ping Kun sued to enforce a liquidated damages clause in the contract. 3) The Supreme Court held that compensatory damages can be awarded in addition to liquidated damages if the obligor is found to be guilty of fraud in fulfilling the contract, as Pamintuan was found to be through his incomplete and overpriced delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    367 views1 page

    Pamintuan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elaiza Ong
    1) Mariano Pamintuan agreed to sell plastic sheetings imported from Japan to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. but only delivered a portion of inferior quality sheetings. 2) Yu Ping Kun sued to enforce a liquidated damages clause in the contract. 3) The Supreme Court held that compensatory damages can be awarded in addition to liquidated damages if the obligor is found to be guilty of fraud in fulfilling the contract, as Pamintuan was found to be through his incomplete and overpriced delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    PAMINTUAN v.

    CA
    G.R. No. L-26339, December 14, 1979.
    94 Phil. 556
    AQUINO, J.

    FACTS:
    Mariano Pamintuan was in an agreement with Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. to sell plastic sheetings
    imported by the former from Japan through a barter license he had for the export of white flint corn
    to Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. While the plastic sheetings were arriving in Manila, Pamintuan informed
    the President of Yu Ping Kun that he was in dire need of cash and requested that he be paid
    immediately for the plastic sheetings. Consequently, the two parties fixed a price to the plastic
    sheetings regardless of the kind, quality or actual invoice value thereof and based it on dividing the
    total price of the shipment with its aggregate quantity. After the shipments arrived in Manila (4
    shipments in total), Pamintuan only delivered a portion or 224, 150 yards of the expected 339, 440
    yards of plastic sheetings he received to Yu Ping Kun's warehouse. Furthermore, he delivered plastic
    sheetings of inferior quality that were valued at a lesser price than what Yu Ping Kun had paid.
    Subsequently, Yu Ping Kun filed an action to enforce a provision in their contract of sale which states
    that any violation of the stipulations of that contract would entitle the aggrieved party to liquidated
    damages in the amount of 10, 000 Php from the offending party.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not compensatory damages may be awarded for breach of a contract of sale in
    addition to liquidated damages/stipulated penalty in the said contract.

    HELD:
    Yes, compensatory damages may be awarded for breach of a contract of sale in addition to
    liquidated damages/stipulated penalty in the said contract. Paragraph 1 of Article 1226 of the New
    Civil Code states that:
    “In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the
    indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of
    noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary.
    Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refuses to pay the
    penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.”
    Thus, as a general rule, the penalty takes the place of the indemnity for damages and the
    payment of interest. However there are exceptions to this rule under the Civil Code, and one of them
    is; when the obligor is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation, indemnity for damages may
    be awarded in addition to and apart from the penalty stipulated.
    The factual findings of the lower courts that Pamintuan was guilty of fraud because he did not
    make a complete delivery of the plastic sheetings and he overpriced the same is conclusive upon the
    Supreme Court. Hence, based on this fact, Pamintuan should pay damages. However, in case of fraud
    the creditor (in this case Yu Ping Kun), in addition to and apart from the stipulated penalty, may only

    You might also like