Scribd
Upload
43 views

Last Case

The case was about a collection of money owed for lumber totaling over 5,000 pesos. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for collection. The defendant denied the allegations and requested litigation expenses and attorney's fees. The main issue was whether the Court of Appeals decided the case based on a new issue not raised in the lower courts regarding delivery of goods. The Supreme Court held that delivery was not a new issue and that payment and delivery are mutually dependent obligations in a contract of sale.

Uploaded by

linkin soy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views

Last Case

The case was about a collection of money owed for lumber totaling over 5,000 pesos. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for collection. The defendant denied the allegations and requested litigation expenses and attorney's fees. The main issue was whether the Court of Appeals decided the case based on a new issue not raised in the lower courts regarding delivery of goods. The Supreme Court held that delivery was not a new issue and that payment and delivery are mutually dependent obligations in a contract of sale.

Uploaded by

linkin soy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC VS

COMPAÑIA MARITIMA
G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975

SUBJECT: Collection of a sum of money for lumber worth 5 300.55 and


453.81 pesos.

FACTS: Berretto Inc, as plaintiff filed a complaint about the


collection of a sum of money against the Maritima. Maritima as the
defendant filed its answer denying all the material allegations of the
complaint. It prayed that the plaintiff-Berretto Inc, be ordered to
pay the sums of P500.00 as expenses of litigation and P1,500.90 as
Attorney's fees, plus costs.

ISSUE: The principal issue, therefore, before the Us is whether or not


the Court of Appeals decided the case on a new issue not raised in the
pleadings before the lower courts (delivery).

HELD: The delivery issue is not a new issue, the Court of Appeal
states. No corresponding duty to pay without the delivery of the
goods, the two balance one another. "One of the contracting parties
conducts to enter into a contract of sale (Art. 1458, 1st par., new
Civil Code).

The 2 components should clearly not be dissociated because "the


purchase and sale deal is actually a contract, since it results in
mutual obligations and to wit, for the vendor's part, to "pay for it
in money or something covering the same object and for the customer's
part."

You might also like