G.R. No. 114791 . May 29, 1997.
NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMOGENES ONG and JANE C. ONG, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Hermogenes and Jane Ong contracted petitioners Nancy and Alex Go to provide video coverage of their wedding for P1,650.00. After the ceremony, the newlyweds attempted to claim the tape multiple times before their honeymoon abroad but were told it was not ready. The parties agreed it would be available upon the couple’s return. However, upon their return, they discovered petitioners had erased the tape. The loss of this irreplaceable record of their wedding prompted the spouses to file a complaint for specific performance and damages.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Ongs, ordering the rescission of the contract and holding the Gos jointly and severally liable for the down payment, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing they were mere agents of a certain Pablo Lim and that the erasure was not done in bad faith, thus contesting their liability and the award of damages.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether petitioners were acting as agents, thereby absolving them of direct liability; (2) whether the awards for moral and exemplary damages were justified; and (3) whether Alex Go could be held jointly and severally liable with his wife Nancy.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the liability. On the agency issue, the Court held petitioners were directly liable as parties to the contract. The contract was one for services (video coverage), not for the lease of equipment owned by Pablo Lim. Applying Article 1883 of the Civil Code, since Nancy Go contracted in her own name, she was directly bound to the Ongs. Their failure to present Lim as a witness to corroborate their agency claim further weakened their defense.
Regarding damages, the Court found petitioners guilty of actionable delay and contravention of their obligation under Article 1170 of the Civil Code. The erasure of the tape, despite the agreed arrangement for a later claim, constituted gross negligence. While moral damages are not typically recoverable in pure breach of contract, they are allowable when the breach is wanton, reckless, or in bad faith, as it concurrently constitutes a quasi-delict. The irreversible loss of a wedding tape of profound sentimental value justified the award for mental anguish. Exemplary damages were also proper due to petitioners’ wanton negligence, serving as a deterrent. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses were upheld.
Finally, the Court modified the solidary liability. Under the applicable law (Article 117 of the Civil Code, now Article 73 of the Family Code), a wife could engage in business without the husband’s consent. The contract was entered into solely by Nancy Go for her business interest. Thus, pursuant to Article 1311 on the relativity of contracts, only Nancy Go was liable for the judgment award, and Alex Go was absolved. The decision was affirmed with this modification.