Bernabe Castillo, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., 176 SCRA 591

digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari where petitioners seek for the renewal of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of the Court of First Instance of the complaint for damages filed by petitioners against the respondents Juanito Rosario and Cresencia Rosario.
On May 2, 1965, petitioner Bernabe Castillo (in his own behalf, and in behalf of Serapion Castillo who has since then become deceased, and Eulogio Castillo, his minor child) and Generosa Galang Castillo figured in a vehicular accident with private respondents Juanito Rosario and Cresencia Rosario at Bagac, Villasis, Pangasinan causing injuries to their persons and damages to their respective vehicles.

The parties have their own version of what actually happened on that fateful day. Each party is pointing to the negligence by the other as the proximate cause of the accident.
While the case was pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan file an information dated September 29. 1965 against Juanito Rosario for double physical injuries, double less serious physical injuries, and damage to property thru reckless imprudence in the Court of First Instance of Urdaneta. Rosario was prosecuted and convicted in the criminal case. Castillo then appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision acquitting him from the crime charged on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision on the basis of the testimonies and evidence submitted by the petitioners as well as the records of the case, dismissing the complain of the petitioners against private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents against the petitioners. On January 24, 1973, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which then affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila as it found no negligence committed by Juanito Rosario to warrant an award of damages to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the judgement of acquittal extinguishes civil liability based on the same incident.

Ruling: Yes. The Court of Appeals' findings that the collision was not due to the negligence of Juanito Rosario but Bernabe Castillo's own act of driving was actually the proximate cause of the collision. With such findings and citing the cases Corpus vs Paje, 28 SCRA 1062, 1064, 1067; Faraon vs Priela, 24 SCRA 582, 583; De Soriano vs Albornoz, 98 Phil. 785, 787788; Tan vs Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672, 675, the Court of Appeals exonerated Rosario from the civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did not exist.

Petition denied. No pronouncement as to costs.

William Ollendorf vs. Ira Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 585

digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Facts: Herein plaintiff Ollendorf and defendant Abrahamson made and entered into Contract of Agreement. The first part hereby agrees to employ the defendant and the party of the second obliges himself to work for the plaintiff within the period of two years. Defendant obligates and binds himself to devote his entire time, attention, energies and industry on the promotion of the furtherance of the business and interest of the party. Failure on the said duty shall entitle the plaintiff to discharge and dismiss the defendant. The second part of the contract further binds the party that he will not enter whether directly or indirectly to engage in a similar or competitive business. Under the term of this agreement, the plaintiff left the employment due to illness and went to U.S. After his departure, the defendant returns to Manila as the Manager of the Philippine Underwear Company. Defendant admits that both firms turn out the same class of goods and those they are exported to the same market. However, he alleged that the said contract with the plaintiff was void for it violates the right for free trade.

Issue: Whether or not the contract is void due to the violation of the rights of trade.

Held: No, the contract was not void as constituting an unreasonable restraint of trade. The rule is that the obligations created by contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be enforce in accordance with their tenor. The only limitation upon the freedom of contractual agreement is that the facts established shall not contrary to law, morals or public order. The industry of counsel failed to discover direct expression of the legislative which will prohibits such.