Taylor V.

Uy Tieng Piao

Mixed cause/origin – depends on the will of the creditor and the third person

Prevention of fulfillment of the condition by obligor/debtor – Article 1189, NCC

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Antecedents:

Court of First Instance, Manila awarded Taylor P300 as damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff
contests that the award is inadequate (he is asking for 13,000) while the Defendant contends that he
and his company is not liable.

FACTS:

Taylor was hired as a superintendent of an oil company, which Tan Liuan & co. contemplated on
building. It was a 2 year contracti, with 600 monthly salary in the first year and 700 monthly salary on
the second year, with additional 60 monthly, in lieu of electricity and water consumption, and rent. The
contract can be cancelled only after 6 months if machinery installment failed to arrive within 6 months.

Tan Liuan & co. did not push through and availed the cancellation of the contract. Taylor
instituted an action to recover damages of 13,000 covering salary due and to become due under
contract. The reason for not pushing through was due to seeing that the oil business no longer promised
large returns, they either cancelled the order for the machinery from choice or were unable to supply
the capital necessary to finance the project.

Petitioner avers that the non-arrival must only be due to causes outside the will and/or acts of
the defendant (basis: Old Civil Code 1256 = New Civil Code 1182) and since the cause was found out to
be entirely the will of the defendant, he believes that he is entitled to the rest of the salary covering the
succeeding months and years of the contract.

ISSUE: WON Tan Liuan & co. is liable to pay Taylor damages for purported breach of contract.

HELD: NO

There is nothing in article 1256 (NCC 1182) which makes it necessary restrict the words "for any
reason," as used in the contract, to mean "for any reason not having its origin in the will or acts of the
defendants."

If it were apparent that the defendants were under a positive obligation to cause the machinery
to arrive in Manila, they would be liable, in the absence of affirmative proof showing that the non-arrival
of the machinery was due to some cause not having its origin in their own act or will. The contract,
however, expresses no such positive obligation, and its existence cannot be implied in the fact of
stipulation, defining the conditions under which the defendants can cancel the contract.

iThe contract has stipulation that reads: “It is understood and agreed that should the machinery to be installed in the said factory fail,
FOR ANY REASON, to arrive in the city of Manila within a period of six months from date hereof, this contract may be cancelled by the
party of the second part at its option, such cancellation, however, not to occur before the expiration of such six months.”