by Nil Jay V. Perolina
Chapter 2 - Nature and Effect of Obligations
Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.(1102a)
What is Article 1171 about?
It is about the effect of waiver of fraud in an obligation.
What is the meaning of Article 1171?
If fraud is present in the obligation, the same is immediately demandable. Waiver of future fraud is void.
What is the reason behind this Article?
Fraud is absolutely not encouraged by the law because of its evil effects.
What is Fraud?
Fraud or Dolo is the deliberate or intentional evasion of the normal fulfilment of an obligation.
What are the two types of Fraud?
1. Dolo Causante
2. Dolo Incidente
Dolo Causante are those deceptions or misrepresentations of a serious character employed by one party and without which the other party would not have entered into the contract.
Dolo Incidente are those which are not serious in character and without which the other party would still have entered into the contract.
What type of fraud or dolo is contemplated by Article 1171?
The dolo or fraud under Art. 1171 is Dolo Incidente because by seeing the nature of Dolo Causante, it will make the agreement annullable so it is not the one contemplated in Article 1171.
What is the effect of waiver of future fraud in an obligation?
A waiver of an action for future fraud is void (no effect, as if there is no waiver) as being against the law and public policy.
Illustration/Example:
If A bought a car from B worth P50,000 and, after delivery of the car by B, A paid B counterfeit money on due date, A shall be liable for damages. If, in the contract of sale, A and B stipulated that any fraudulent act by another in the performance of his obligation shall not be a ground for the aggrieved party to file a suit against the other for fraud is a void stipulation. By express provision of law, waiver is void.
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
What is article 1172 about?
It is about the responsibility arising from negligence in an obligation.
What is the meaning of Article 1172?
In the performance of every kind of obligation, the debtor is liable for damages resulting from his negligence.
What is the reason behind this article?
The reason is because negligence is a question which must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. Moreover, negligence is not as serious as fraud because in the case of the former, there is no bad faith or deliberate intention to cause injury.
What is Negligence?
It is lack of foresight or knowledge
What are the kinds of Negligence according to source of obligation?
1. Culpa Contractual
2. Culpa Aquiliana
3. Culpa Criminal
Culpa Contractual
It is where negligence is merely incidental in the performance of an obligation. There is always a pre existing contractual relation. The source of the obligation of the defendant to pay damages is the breach or non-fulfillment of the contract. Proof of the existence of the contract and of its breach or non-fulfillment is sufficient prima facie to warrant recovery.
Culpa Aquiliana
It is where negligence is direct, substantive and independent. There may or may not be a pre-existing contractual obligation. The source of obligation is the defendant’s negligence itself. The negligence of the defendant must be proven.
Culpa Criminal
The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176.
Illustrations/Examples
Illustration 1
If S entered into a contract of sale with B to deliver a specific horse on a certain day and the horse died through the negligence of S before delivery, S is liable for damages to B for having failed to fulfill a pre-existing obligation (contract may be either express or implied) because of his negligence. This is culpa contractual.
Illustration 2
Assume now, that the horse belongs to and is in the possession of B. The negligence of S which results in the death of the horse is culpa aquiliana. In this case, there is no pre-existing contractual relation between S and B. The negligence itself is the source of liability.
Illustration 3
With the previous illustration, the crime can be committed by negligence. If B wants, he can bring an action for culpa criminal (damage to property through simple or reckless imprudence). Here, the crime is the source of the obligation of S to pay damages.
What is the rule on the liability for damages of S in the previous illustration?
As a rule, B cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of S. In other words, responsibility for quasi-delict is not demandable together with the civil liability arising from a criminal offense.
What is the effect of negligence in an obligation as a general rule?
If negligence is present in the obligation, it is likewise demandable.
What is the effect of negligence on the part of the injured party?
Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides that “When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.”
In other words, to be entitled to damages, the law does not require that the negligence of the defendant should be the sole cause of the damage. There is contributory negligence on the part of the injured party where his conduct has contributed, as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. The defense of contributory negligence of the injured party does not apply in criminal cases where the offense was committed by the accused through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.
What is the effect of waiver of future negligence in an obligation?
Waiver of future negligence may be allowed except in the following cases:
a. where the nature of the obligation requires exercise of extraordinary diligence as in the case of common carriers and
b. also where negligence shows bad faith. (Art. 1172)
Illustration/Example
In the case of Philippine National Bank v. CA, the bank negligently dishonored the check of its depositor. The bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos. Even without malice and bad faith, the petitioner’s negligence caused anxiety and embarrassment, which entitles her to moral damages wherein damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the defendant’s expense.
Case Digest from Original Case
Citation:
Chavez v. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547, June 29, 1957
Case Docket:
G.R. No. L-27454
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Rosendo O. Chaves
Defendant-Appellee:
Fructuoso Gonzales
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant:
Chaves, Elio, Chaves & Associates
Counsel for Defendant-Appellee:
Sulpicio E. Platon
Ponente:
REYES, J.B.L., J.
page 74, Article 1168 of Balane book
Facts:
In the early part of July, 1963, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, who is a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing. The defendant was not able to finish the job after some time despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff. The defendant merely gave assurances, but failed to comply with the same. In October, 1963, the defendant asked from the plaintiff the sum of P6.00 for the purchase of spare parts, which amount the plaintiff gave to the defendant. On October 26, 1963, after getting exasperated with the delay of the repair of the typewriter, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked for the return of the typewriter.
The defendant delivered the typewriter in a wrapped package. On reaching home, the plaintiff examined the typewriter returned to him by the defendant and found out that the same was in shambles, with the interior cover and some parts and screws missing. On October 29, 1963. the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant formally demanding the return of the missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of P6.00 (Exhibit D). The following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant shall be held liable
Ruling:
Yes, the defendant shall be held liable. The defendant-appellee is ordered to pay the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso Gonzales.
_________________________________________________________
Thank you very much! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment