Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 516 views

    20 Delmonte V Aragones Digest

    Uploaded by

    jpeg
    Del Monte Philippines (DMPI) contracted with MEGA-WAFF to install modular pavement. MEGA-WAFF then contracted with Dynablock Enterprises, represented by Napoleon Aragones, to supply the materials. MEGA-WAFF failed to pay Aragones and missed deadlines with DMPI. Aragones requested payment from DMPI, but they paid MEGA-WAFF instead. Aragones sued DMPI and MEGA-WAFF. The court ruled the supply agreement between Aragones and MEGA-WAFF was for a piece of work, making DMPI jointly liable, as the materials were specially manufactured for the project.

    Copyright:

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

    20 Delmonte V Aragones Digest

    Uploaded by

    jpeg
    516 views1 page
    Del Monte Philippines (DMPI) contracted with MEGA-WAFF to install modular pavement. MEGA-WAFF then contracted with Dynablock Enterprises, represented by Napoleon Aragones, to supply the materials. MEGA-WAFF failed to pay Aragones and missed deadlines with DMPI. Aragones requested payment from DMPI, but they paid MEGA-WAFF instead. Aragones sued DMPI and MEGA-WAFF. The court ruled the supply agreement between Aragones and MEGA-WAFF was for a piece of work, making DMPI jointly liable, as the materials were specially manufactured for the project.

    Original Description:

    DELMONTE V ARAGONES DIGEST Contract of Sale distinguished from Contract for a piece of work

    Original Title

    20 Delmonte v Aragones Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Del Monte Philippines (DMPI) contracted with MEGA-WAFF to install modular pavement. MEGA-WAFF then contracted with Dynablock Enterprises, represented by Napoleon Aragones, to supply the materials. MEGA-WAFF failed to pay Aragones and missed deadlines with DMPI. Aragones requested payment from DMPI, but they paid MEGA-WAFF instead. Aragones sued DMPI and MEGA-WAFF. The court ruled the supply agreement between Aragones and MEGA-WAFF was for a piece of work, making DMPI jointly liable, as the materials were specially manufactured for the project.

    Copyright:

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

    20 Delmonte V Aragones Digest

    Uploaded by

    jpeg
    Del Monte Philippines (DMPI) contracted with MEGA-WAFF to install modular pavement. MEGA-WAFF then contracted with Dynablock Enterprises, represented by Napoleon Aragones, to supply the materials. MEGA-WAFF failed to pay Aragones and missed deadlines with DMPI. Aragones requested payment from DMPI, but they paid MEGA-WAFF instead. Aragones sued DMPI and MEGA-WAFF. The court ruled the supply agreement between Aragones and MEGA-WAFF was for a piece of work, making DMPI jointly liable, as the materials were specially manufactured for the project.

    Copyright:

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

    GRANATIN

    Case No. 20
    Del Monte Philippines, Inc., vs. Napoleon N. Aragones
    G.R. No. 153033 June 23,2005
    Facts:
    Del Monte Philippines Inc. (DMPI) entered into an Agreement with Mega-Engineering Services
    in joint venture with WAFF Construction System Corporation (MEGA-WAFF), represented by
    Managing Principal Edilberto Garcia, whereby the latter undertook the supply and installation of
    modular pavement at DMPIs condiments warehouse at Cagayan de Oro City. MEGA-WAFF,
    represented by Garcia, entered into a Supply Agreement with Dynablock Enterprises, represented
    by Napoleon Aragones. MEGA-WAFF failed to meet the deadline stated in the Agreement with
    DMPI, thus they were penalized for the delay. After the installation, MEGA-WAFF failed to pay
    Aragones. Aragones wrote a letter to DMPI requesting that the payment be made directly to him
    instead of MEGA-WAFF. DMPI however realeased the payment to Garcia. Aragones was then
    prompted to file a complaint for sum of money (P 188,652.65) with damages against Garcia and/or
    MEGA-WAFF and DMPI. The RTC ruled in favor of Aragones, holding Garcia/MEGA-WAFF
    and DMPI jointly and severally liable for the unpaid cost of P 188,652.65 and damages. DMPI
    appealed to the Court of Appeals but the court affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
    Issue: Whether or not the Supply Agreement between Aragones and MEGA-WAFF was one for a
    piece of work.
    Held: Yes. Contrary to DMPI’s claim, the Supply Agreement is replete with specifications, terms
    or conditions showing that it was one for a piece of work. The machines Aragones was obliged to
    fabricate were those for casting the concrete blocks specified by Garcia. Aragones did not have
    those kind of machines in his usual business, hence, the special order. Under Article 1467 of the
    Civil Code,if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special
    order, and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work. The Supply Agreement
    was decidedly a contract for a piece of work.

    You might also like