Decision
Pamintuan v. Court Of Appeals
G.R. No. L-26339 · 1979-12-14 · AQUINO, J. · LawPhil
MARIANO C. PAMINTUAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and YU PING KUN CO., INC., respondent-appellees. V. E. del Rosario & Associates for appellant. Sangco & Sangalang for private respondent
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the recovery compensatory, damages for breach of a contract of sale in addition to liquidated damages. Mariano C. Pamintuan appealed from the judgment of the Court of Appeals wherein he was ordered to deliver to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. certain plastic sheetings and, if he could not do so, to pay the latter P100,559.28 as damages with six percent interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. The facts and the findings of the Court of Appeals are as follows: In 1960, Pamintuan was the holder of a barter license wherein he was authorized to export to Japan one thousand metric tons of white flint corn valued at forty-seven thousand United States dollars in exchange for a collateral importation of plastic sheetings of an equivalent value.
By virtue of that license, he entered into an agreement to ship his corn to Tokyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. of Osaka, Japan in exchange for plastic sheetings. He contracted to sell the plastic sheetings to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. for two hundred sixty-five thousand five hundred fifty pesos. The company undertook to open an irrevocable domestic letter of credit for that amount in favor of Pamintuan.
It was further agreed that Pamintuan would deliver the plastic sheetings to the company at its bodegas in Manila or suburbs directly from the piers "within one month upon arrival of" the carrying vessels. Any violation of the contract of sale would entitle the aggreived party to collect from the offending party liquidated damages in the sum of ten thousand pesos (Exh.
A). On July 28, 1960, the company received a copy of the letter from the Manila branch of Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. confirming the acceptance by Japanese suppliers of firm offers for the consignment to Pamintuan of plastic sheetings valued at forty-seven thousand dollars. Acting on that information, the company lost no time in securing in favor of Pamintuan an irrevocable letter of credit for two hundred sixty-five thousand five hundred fifty pesos.
Pamintuan was apprised by the bank on August 1, 1960 of that letter of credit which made reference to the delivery to Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. on or before October 31, 1960 of 336, 360 yards of plastic sheetings (p. 21, Record on Appeal). On September 27 and 30 and October 4, 1960, the Japanese suppliers shipped to Pamintuan, through Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd., the plastic sheetings in four shipments to wit: (1) Firm Offer No. 327 for 50,000 yards valued at $9,000; (2) Firm Offer No. 328 for 70,000 yards valued at $8,050; (3) Firm Offers Nos. 329 and 343 for 175,000 and 18,440 yards valued at $22,445 and $2,305, respectively, and (4) Firm Offer No. 330 for 26,000 yards valued at $5,200, or a total of 339,440 yards with an aggregate value of $47,000 (pp. 4-5 and 239-40, Record on Appeal).
The plastic sheetings arrived in Manila and were received by Pamintuan. Out of the shipments, Pamintuan delivered to the company's warehouse only the following quantities of plastic sheetings: November 11, 1960 - 140 cases, size 48 inches by 50 yards. November 14, 1960 - 258 cases out of 352 cases.
November 15, 1960 - 11 cases out of 352 cases. November 15, 1960 - 10 cases out of 100 cases. November 15, 1960 - 30 cases out of 100 cases.
Pamintuan withheld delivery of (1) 50 cases of plastic sheetings containing 26,000 yards valued at $5,200; (2) 37 cases containing 18,440 yards valued at $2,305; (3) 60 cases containing 30,000 yards valued at $5,400 and (4) 83 cases containing 40,850 yards valued at $5,236.97. While the plastic sheetings were arriving in Manila, Pamintuan informed the president of Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. that he was in dire need of cash with which to pay his obligations to the Philippine National Bank.
Inasmuch as the computation of the prices of each delivery would allegedly be a long process, Pamintuan requested that he be paid immediately. Consequently, Pamintuan and the president of the company, Benito Y.C. Espiritu, agreed to fix the price of the plastic sheetings at P0.782 a yard, regardless of the kind, quality or actual invoice value thereof. The parties arrived at that figure by dividing the total price of P265,550 by 339,440 yards, the aggregate quantity of the shipments.
After Pamintuan had delivered 224,150 yards of sheetings of interior quality valued at P163,.047.87, he refused to deliver the remainder of the shipments with a total value of P102,502.13 which were covered by (i) Firm Offer No. 330, containing 26,000 yards valued at P29,380; (2) Firm Offer No. 343, containing 18,440 yards valued at P13,023.25; (3) Firm Offer No. 217, containing 30,000 yards valued at P30,510 and (4) Firm Offer No. 329 containing 40,850 yards valued at P29,588.88 (See pp. 243-2, Record on Appeal). As justification for his refusal, Pamintuan said that the company failed to comply with the conditions of the contract and that it was novated with respect to the price. On December 2, 1960, the company filed its amended complaint for damages against Pamintuan.
After trial, the lower court rendered the judgment mentioned above but including moral damages. The unrealized profits awarded as damages in the trial court's decision were computed as follows (pp. 248-9, Record on Appeal): (1) 26,000 yards with a contract price of P1.13 per yard and a selling price at the time of delivery of P1.75 a yard . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
P16,120.00 (2) 18,000 yards with a contract price of P0.7062 per yard and selling price of Pl.20 per yard at the time of delivery . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .. 9,105.67 (3) 30,000 yards with a contract price of P1.017 per yard and a selling price of Pl.70 per yard .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. 20,490.00 (4) 40,850 yards with a contract price of P0.7247 per yard and a selling price of P1.25 a yard at the time of delivery . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
21,458.50 Total unrealized profits . . .
. . .
. . .
. ..