GR 1267; (January, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1267 : January 19, 1904
CO-TIANGCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TO-JAMCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Co-Tiangco, filed an action to recover sums of money allegedly owed by the defendant, To-Jamco, for services rendered. The plaintiff claimed the amount not only for his own services but also as an assignee of the claims of three other individuals: Ong-Congco, Chua-Checo, and Cua-Ohco. The trial court found that the defendant had contracted with the plaintiff and these three individuals for their services and had agreed to pay them. The court accepted as credible the testimonies of the plaintiff and the three assignors, establishing that the services were rendered and that specific amounts remained unpaid. The defendant appealed, but the motion for a new trial was based solely on newly discovered evidence, not on the ground that the findings of fact were contrary to the evidence. Consequently, under the procedural rules, the appellate court’s review was limited to questions of law.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed any reversible error of law in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the facts it found.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Court held that, based on the facts found by the trial courtwhich were binding in this appeala valid contract of hire existed between the defendant and the plaintiff (and his assignors). Under Articles 1258 and 1091 of the Civil Code, contracts obligate the parties to fulfill their agreements, and such obligations have the force of law between them. Therefore, the defendant was legally bound to pay the agreed sums for services rendered. The Court found no error in the trial court’s application of the law. It further noted that the defendant’s personal stipulation to pay for the services was a sufficient and independent legal basis for the obligation, making it unnecessary to consider the legal effects of a separate written note mentioned in the record. The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.