Article 1189

        

      Kung ang kondisyon o kasunduan ay naipatupad na at ang layunin nito ay ipagpaliban ang mga pananagutan ng pagbibigay ng mga ito , ang mga sumusunod ay dapat ipatupad kung may mga pagbabago, pagkawala, o pagkasira sa mga panahong suspensido ang kondisyon.

1. Kung ang bagay ay mawala na walang kasalanan ang may utang ang pananagutan ay mawawala din.
2. Kung ang pagkawala ng bagay ay kasalanan ng may utang, mananagot siya magbayad ng danyos at ipagpapalagay ang gayon bagay ay hindi na muling mababawi pa.
3. Kung ang bagay ay kumupas o sumama na, ang may utang ay walang kasalanan, ang pagpapagawa o pagbabalik ng dating kaanyoan ay sa sagutin ng nagpapautang.
4. Kung ang pagkupas o pagbaba ng halaga ay kagagawan o kasalanan ng may pagkakautang ang nagpapautang ay magpapasiya upang pawalan saysay/kansilahin ang obligasyon at pagsasakatuparan noon na may kabayaran sa danyos alin man sa dalawa ang pipiliin nya.
5. Kung ang bagay ay umunlad ng natural o ng panahon, ang kaunlaran ay sa pakinabang ng nagpapautang.
6. Kung ang pagunlad ay kagagawan ng may utang wala siyang karapatan maliban sa karapatan ipinagkaloob ng usufructuary o pag bibigay ng karapatan upang magamit ito. 

 YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners,

       

 VS.

     

THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.G.R. No. 126780

February 17, 20052

Division J. Tinga

FACTS:

Respondent McLoughlin would always stay at Tropicana Hotel every time he is here in thePhilippines and would rent a safety deposit box. The safety deposit box could only be openedthrough the use of 2 keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining inthe possession of the management of the hotel.McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box – 2 envelopes containingUS Dollars, one envelope containing Australian Dollars, Letters, credit cards, bankbooks and acheckbook.On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip, McLoughlin took some items from thesafety box which includes the ff: envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), theother envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and hiscredit cards. The other items were left in the deposit box. Upon arrival, he found out that a fewdollars were missing and the jewelry he bought was likewise missing.Eventually, he confronted Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that Tan opened the safetydeposit box with the key assigned to him. McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was stayingand confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLouglin’s key and was able to open thesafety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlinthat Tan stole the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was asleep.McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss hesuffered. Lopez refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safetydeposit box entitled “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”

ISSUE:

WON the "Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box" admittedly executed by privaterespondent is null and void.

HELD:

YESArticle 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policyprecisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like thecommon carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers arebound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty tothe public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” thatordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that to hold hotelkeepers orinnkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered tothe innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn. Withgreater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items aretaken without the guest’s knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotelitself, as in this case.Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene Article 2003, CC for theyallow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of thesafety deposit box for any cause whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar anyclaim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or notnegligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that theresponsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of theguests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as bystrangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.

.

.

Art. 1173. Ang pagkakamali  o kapabayaan  ng obligor ay magbabangkas ng hindi pagsasagawa ng sipag na kailangan isagawa sa kalikasan ng obligasyon at umaayon sa mga kalagayan ng mga tao, ng oras at ng lugar. Kung ang negligence ay nagpapakita ng hindi mabuting tangka , ang mga probisyon ng Article 1171 at 2201, ika pangalawang talataan, ang masusunod.

Kung hindi nasasaad sa batas o kontrata ang klase ng sipag na kailangan maisagawa sa pagsasakatuparan ng obligasyon, iyong sipag na inaasahan sa mabuting padre de pamilya ang kailangang isagawa.ilangang isagawa.

Illustrative case by: kristine mariano

PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners, 

vs.

SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.

Facts and the Case

             On December 19, 2002 the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous letter-complaint¹from alleged employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The letter accused DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A. Pleyto of extortion, illicit affairs, and manipulation of DPWH projects.

In the course of the PAGC’s investigation, Pleyto submitted his 1999, 2000, and 2001 SALNs. PAGC examined these and observed that, while Pleyto said therein that his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her business interests and financial connections. Thus, on April 29, 2003 PAGC charged Pleyto before the Office of the President (OP) for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."

Pleyto claimed that he and his wife had no business interests of any kind and for this reason, he wrote "NONE" under the column "Business Interests and Financial Connections" on his 1999 SALN and left the column blank in his 2000 and 2001 SALNs Further, he attributed the mistake to the fact that his SALNs were merely prepared by his wife’s bookkeeper.

On July 10, 2003 PAGC found Pleyto guilty as charged and recommended to the OP his dismissal with forfeiture of all government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service.

On January 29, 2004 the OP approved the recommendation.From this, Pleyto filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsiderationclaiming that: 1) he should first be allowed to avail of the review and compliance procedure in Section 10 of R.A. 6713 before he is administratively charged; 2) he indicated "NONE" in the column for financial and business interests because he and his wife had no business interests related to DPWH; and 3) his failure to indicate his wife’s business interests is not punishable under R.A. 3019.

On March 2, 2004 PAGC filed its comment, contending that Pleyto’s reliance on the Review and Complicance Procedure was unavailing because the mechanism had not yet been established and, in any case, his SALN was a sworn statement, the contents of which were beyond the corrective guidance of the DPWH Secretary. Furthermore, his failure to declare his wife's business interests and financial connections was highly irregular and was a form of dishonesty.

On March 11, 2005 Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita ordered PAGC to conduct a reinvestigation of Pleyto’s case. In compliance, PAGC queried the Department of Trade and Industry of Region III–Bulacan regarding the businesses registered in the name of Miguela Pleyto, his wife. PAGC found that she operated the following businesses: 1) R.S. Pawnshop, registered since May 19, 1993; 2) M. Pleyto Piggery and Poultry Farm, registered since December 29, 1998; 3) R.S. Pawnshop–Pulong Buhangin Branch, registered since July 24, 2000; and 4) RSP Laundry and Dry Cleaning, registered since July 24, 2001.

The PAGC also inquired with the DPWH regarding their Review and Compliance procedure. The DPWH said that, they merely reminded their officials of the need for them to comply with R.A. 6713 by filing their SALNs on time and that they had no mechanism for reviewing or validating the entries in the SALNs of their more than 19,000 permanent, casual and contractual employees.

On February 21, 2006 the PAGC maintained its finding and recommendation respecting Pleyto.On August 29, 2006 the OP denied Pleyto’s Motion for Reconsideration. Pleyto raised the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) which on December 29, 2006 granted Pleyto’s petition and permanently enjoined the PAGC and the OP from implementing their decisions.This prompted the latter offices to come to this Court on a petition for review.

Issues Presented

         1. Whether or not the CA erred in not finding Pleyto’s failure to indicate his spouse’s business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713.

        2. Whether or not the CA erred in finding that under the Review and Compliance Procedure, Pleyto should have first been allowed to correct the error in his SALNs before being charged for violation of R.A. 6713.

The Court’s Rulings

     This is the second time Pleyto’s SALNs are before this Court. The first time was in G.R. 169982, Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG).²³ In that case, the PNP-CIDG filed on July 28, 2003 administrative charges against Pleyto with the Office of the Ombudsman for violating, among others, Section 8 of R.A. 6713 in that he failed to disclose in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs his wife’s business interests and financial connections.

On June 28, 2004 the Office of the Ombudsman ordered Pleyto dismissed from the service. He appealed the order to the CA but the latter dismissed his petition and the motion for reconsideration that he subsequently filed. Pleyto then assailed the CA’s ruling before this Court raising, among others, the following issues: 1) whether or not Pleyto violated Section 8(a) of R.A. 6713; and 2) whether or not Pleyto’s reliance on the Review and Compliance Procedure in the law was unwarranted.

After threshing out the other issues, this Court found that Pleyto’s failure to disclose his wife’s business interests and financial connections constituted simple negligence, not gross misconduct 

Article 1181

Article 1181
Sa mga obligasyon condisyonal, ang pagtatamo ng karapatan, pati na rin ang pagtapos o 
kawala ng mga natamong karapatan  ay nakasalalay sa mga pangyayari ng mga kaganapan na bumubuo ng kundisyon.
Case Digest by: kristine Mariano

Case:PARKS VS. PROVINCE OF TARLAC (G.R. No. L-24190 )    

 July 13, 1926   

GEORGE L. PARKS, plaintiff-appellant, 
vs.
PROVINCE OF TARLAC, MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC, CONCEPCION CIRER, and JAMES HILL, her husband, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:

In 1910, Concepcion Cirer and James Hill donated parcels of land to the municipality of Tarlac on the condition that it be used absolutely and exclusively for the erection of a central school and public parks, the work to commence within six months. The president of the municipality of Tarlac accepted and registered the donation.

In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the same property to George L. Parks.

Later on the, the municipality of Tarlac transferred their rights in the property to the Province of Tarlac.
Parks filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the donation and asking that he be declared the absolute owner of the property. Parks allege that the conditions of the donation were not complied with.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the donation was coupled with a condition precedent? W/N the action to revoke has prescribed?

HELD:

No. The condition to erect a school within six months is not a condition precedent. The characteristic of a condition precedent is that the acquisiito of the right is not effected while said condition is mot complied with or is not deemed complied with. Meanwhile nothing is acquired and there is only an expectancy of a right. Consequently, when a condition is imposed, the compliance of which cannot be effected except when the right is deemed acquired, such condition cannot be a condition precedent. In the present case the condition that a public school be erected and a public park be made of the donated land could not be complied with except after giving effect to the donation.

The action to revoke the donation has prescribed. The prescriptive periods are: 5 years for the revocation by the subsequent birth of children, 1 year if by reason of ingratitude. If no special period is prescribed, 10 years, for an onerous donation following the law of contracts and general rules on prescriptions. The donation was made in 1910, the cause of action accrued in 1911, while the action to revoke was filed 1924, twenty three years later.