Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    1350-1355 - Cause of Contracts (Effect of Absence of Cause or Cause Is Unlawful)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Jane Usop
    1) Restituta Quirante stole money from her employers, Teodoro Velez and Hermenegilda Chiong Veloso, totaling 2,303.60 pesos. 2) To prevent Restituta from being prosecuted, her father Roberto Quirante and husband Salomon Ramas signed a contract agreeing to pay back the stolen money plus 12% interest annually. 3) In exchange, Velez and Veloso agreed to suspend their criminal action against Restituta. However, the court ruled the contract was invalid because its purpose was to prevent a criminal prosecution, which is against public policy.

    Copyright:

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

    1350-1355 - Cause of Contracts (Effect of Absence of Cause or Cause Is Unlawful)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Jane Usop
    74 views2 pages
    1) Restituta Quirante stole money from her employers, Teodoro Velez and Hermenegilda Chiong Veloso, totaling 2,303.60 pesos. 2) To prevent Restituta from being prosecuted, her father Roberto Quirante and husband Salomon Ramas signed a contract agreeing to pay back the stolen money plus 12% interest annually. 3) In exchange, Velez and Veloso agreed to suspend their criminal action against Restituta. However, the court ruled the contract was invalid because its purpose was to prevent a criminal prosecution, which is against public policy.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Restituta Quirante stole money from her employers, Teodoro Velez and Hermenegilda Chiong Veloso, totaling 2,303.60 pesos. 2) To prevent Restituta from being prosecuted, her father Roberto Quirante and husband Salomon Ramas signed a contract agreeing to pay back the stolen money plus 12% interest annually. 3) In exchange, Velez and Veloso agreed to suspend their criminal action against Restituta. However, the court ruled the contract was invalid because its purpose was to prevent a criminal prosecution, which is against public policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    1350-1355 - Cause of Contracts (Effect of Absence of Cause or Cause Is Unlawful)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Jane Usop
    1) Restituta Quirante stole money from her employers, Teodoro Velez and Hermenegilda Chiong Veloso, totaling 2,303.60 pesos. 2) To prevent Restituta from being prosecuted, her father Roberto Quirante and husband Salomon Ramas signed a contract agreeing to pay back the stolen money plus 12% interest annually. 3) In exchange, Velez and Veloso agreed to suspend their criminal action against Restituta. However, the court ruled the contract was invalid because its purpose was to prevent a criminal prosecution, which is against public policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VELEZ V.

    RAMAS 40 PHIL 787


    1350-1355 – Cause of Contracts
    (Effect of absence of cause or cause is unlawful)

    FACTS: The defendant Roberto Quirante is the father of Restituta Quirante, who in turn is the wife of the defendant Salomon Ramas. Prior to perfection (birth) of the contract,
    the plaintiffs, Teodoro Velez and wife, Hermenegilda Chiong Veloso, were the owners of a pawnshop and had employed Restituta Quirante in some capacity or other therein.
    While thus employed, Restituta Quirante abstracted various sum of money belonging to the plaintiffs, amounting altogether to P 2,303.60, under conditions which supposedly
    constituted the offense of estafa.

    Whereas, in order to prevent said woman from being brought before the courts for the unlawful act she has executed, the defendants subscribing the contract in question, have
    guaranteed to the said plaintiffs the payment of the aforesaid sum plus an interest of 12% per annum to bring against Restituta Quirante. Whereas, by virtue of the foegoing
    obligation, said Velez and Veloso agree to suspend the action they intend to bring against Restituta Quirante.

    Thus action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu by the plaintiff, Teodoro Velez and his wife, to recover of the defendants, Salomon Ramas and
    Roberto Quirante, a sum of money evidenced by a written obligation signed by said defendants on July 30, 1917, wherein they acknowledged themselves to be jointly and
    severally bound for the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of P 2,303.60. It is admitted that the defendant Ramas had paid P300 upon said obligation prior to the institution of the
    suit, leaving a balance of P 2,003.60. Salomon Ramas answered the complaint, admitting in effect the facts alleged therein, and stating as his sole ground of defense that the
    alleged contract was illegal on its face. This defendant further interposed a counterclaim, seeking to recover P 300 which he had already paid. The defendant Roberto Quirante
    did not appear, and no defense was made for him. When the case was submitted for decision the trial court sustained the defense, absolved both the defendants from the
    complaint and gave judgment upon the counterclaim in favor of Salomon Ramas jointly and severally against the plaintiffs for the sum of P 300, with interest at the legal rate
    from the date the answer was filed. From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

    ISSUE: WON the contract is valid

    RULING: We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in the conclusion that an action cannot be maintained upon this contract. The preliminary recitals clearly disclose
    the fact that the purpose of the contracting parties was to prevent a prosecution for crime; and the injured parties, on their part, agree to suspend the criminal proceedings which
    they had intended to promote. In our opinion the consideration for this agreement is clearly illicit.

    By the universal consensus of judicial opinion in all ages it has been considered contrary to public policy to allow parties to make
    agreements designed to prevent or stifle prosecutions for crime, It is self-evident that the law cannot sanction an engagement which
    is subversive of the law itself or which tends to weaken the foundations of human society. The machinery for the administration of
    justice cannot be used to promote an unlawful purpose.

    You might also like