G.R. No. L-9300; April 18, 1958
MARIANO A. ALBERT, plaintiff-appellee, vs. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 19, 1948, Mariano A. Albert (plaintiff) and University Publishing Co., Inc. (defendant) entered into a contract. Albert granted the defendant the exclusive right to publish his revised commentaries on “The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines” for five years, with a limit of 4,000 copies. In consideration, the defendant agreed to pay Albert P30,000 in eight quarterly installments of P3,750 each, beginning July 15, 1948. A key stipulation (paragraph 4) stated that if the defendant failed to pay any installment when due, the remaining installments would become due and payable, and Albert would take charge of the publication and sale. Another stipulation (paragraph 7) required Albert to deliver the final manuscript by December 31, 1948; failure to do so would relieve the defendant of the obligation to pay remaining installments unless the defendant itself undertook to complete the manuscript with the latest Supreme Court decisions.
The defendant made partial payments totaling P7,000 but failed to pay the full installments when due. Albert, through a letter dated December 16, 1948, advised the defendant that the manuscript was ready for delivery. The defendant denied receiving this letter and contended that Albert breached the contract by failing to deliver the final manuscript by the deadline. Albert filed an action, and during its pendency, he died, with the estate’s administrator substituted as plaintiff. The trial court ruled in favor of Albert, ordering the defendant to pay P23,000 (the balance of the P30,000 minus payments made), with interest and costs. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court because the defendant’s counterclaim exceeded P50,000.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the plaintiff, Mariano A. Albert, performed his obligation under the contract by delivering the manuscript by December 31, 1948, thereby entitling him to recover the unpaid balance due to the defendant’s failure to pay the installments.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that Albert performed his obligation. The evidence, including the testimony of his stenographer and the carbon copy of the December 16, 1948 letter, proved he advised the defendant that the manuscript was ready for delivery. The defendant’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient to overcome this evidence. The Court also found no stipulation requiring the commentaries to include cases up to 1948. The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the full installments when due. The payment of P2,000 on November 10, 1948, completed the first installment (originally due October 15) with a P250 excess, but by January 15, 1949, the defendant was still short P500 for the second installment. This failure triggered the stipulation in paragraph 4, making all remaining installments due and payable. The Court further ruled that the resolution of the contract for breach does not preclude an award of damages, especially when stipulated. Thus, the defendant was ordered to pay the estate of Albert the sum of P23,000, with interest from the filing of the complaint, and costs.