UP vs. delos Angeles Digest

“Resorting to Court Not Needed for Rescission”

Parties: UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, in his capacity as JUDGE of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN QUEZON CITY, ET AL, Associated Lumber Manufacturing Company, Inc. (or ALUMCO) respondents.

Facts

Land Grant Act 3608, was given as an endowment to UP for purposes of raising income for its support

November 1960, UP and ALUMCO entered into a logging agreement under which the latter was granted exclusive authority, pay UP royalties, forest trees, etc.; but on Dec 1964, had unpaid accounts

After it received notice of contract rescission, ALUMCO executed an instrument, entitled “Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments,” Term #3: balance to be paid by the DEBTOR in full no later than June 30, 1965;

ALUMCO incurred additional unpaid accounts

7 September 1965, UP filed a complaint against ALUMCO for the collection or payment of the herein before stated sums of money, then obtained order restraining ALUMCO from logging operations under Land Grant

Before issuance of prelim injunct., UP advertised and awared to Sta Clara Lumber the logging contract on Feb 16, 1966.

Court ordered UP in contempt, filed 3 Rulings, one of which is (1) 25 February 1966, enjoined UP from awarding logging rights over its timber concession (or Land Grant), situated at the Lubayat areas in the provinces of Laguna and Quezon;

ALUMCO

period of the logging agreement is five (5) years

blaming its former general manager, Cesar Guy, in not turning over management of ALUMCO, thereby rendering unpaid balance; the rotten condition of the logs

UP

UP’s unilateral rescission of the logging contract, without a court order, was invalid

Offers were made to UP but no response

Court: do not constitute on their face sufficient excuse for non-payment;

Whether petitioner U.P. can treat its contract with ALUMCO rescinded, and may disregard the same before any judicial pronouncement to that effect? Yes.

Express stipulation of parties – nothing in the law will prohibit parties from entering into agreement. Resorting to court is not necessary for recission of contract. (1191 of CC, Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping)

Treating contract as cancelled must be made known and is always provisional. Court decision, if decides contract is not warranted, party will be sentenced to damages.

Party who deems the contract resolved or rescinded proceeds at its own risk

petitioner University made out a prima facie case of breach of contract and defaults in payment by respondent ALUMCO, to the extent that the court below issued a writ of preliminary injunction stopping ALUMCO’s logging operations

Did CFI committed grave abuse of discretion? Yes

considering that whatever prejudice may be suffered by respondent ALUMCO is susceptible of compensation in damages, it becomes plain that the acts of the court a quo in enjoining petitioner’s measures to protect its interest without first receiving evidence on the issues tendered by the parties, and in subsequently refusing to dissolve the injunction, were in grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari, since appeal was not available or adequate. Such injunction, therefore, must be set aside.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

People v. Tumimpad

G.R. No. 109144. August 19, 1994. Syllabus:The result of a blood grouping test may not be admissible if it conflicts with substantial oral testimonies. It

Read More »

Stare decisis

that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. – Virtucio vs. Alegarbes

Read More »

MIAA vs. Pasay

Facts Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) received Final Notices of Real Property Tax Delinquency from Pasay City for 10 taxable years or from 1992 to

Read More »

Defamation

Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements.5 It is that

Read More »
en_USEnglish