SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016
SPOUSES ALEXANDER AND JULIE LAM, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "COLORKWIK LABORATORIES" AND "COLORKWIK PHOTO SUPPLY", Petitioners, v. KODAK PHILIPPINES, LTD., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed on April 20, 2005 assailing the March 30, 2005 Decision1 and September 9, 2005 Amended Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, which modified the February 26, 1999 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court by reducing the amount of damages awarded to petitioners Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam (Lam Spouses).4
The Lam Spouses argue that respondent Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s breach of their contract of sale entitles them to damages more than the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals.5
This confirms our verbal agreement for Kodak Phils., Ltd. to provide Colorkwik Laboratories, Inc. with three (3) units Kodak Minilab System 22XL . . . for your proposed outlets in Rizal Avenue (Manila), Tagum (Davao del Norte), and your existing Multicolor photo counter in Cotabato City under the following terms and conditions:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Said Minilab Equipment packages will avail a total of 19% multiple order discount based on prevailing equipment price provided said equipment packages will be purchased not later than June 30, 1992.
2. 19% Multiple Order Discount shall be applied in the form of merchandise and delivered in advance immediately after signing of the contract.
* Also includes start-up packages worth P61,000.00.
3. NO DOWNPAYMENT.
4. Minilab Equipment Package shall be payable in 48 monthly installments at THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00) inclusive of 24% interest rate for the first 12 months; the balance shall be re-amortized for the remaining 36 months and the prevailing interest shall be applied.
5. Prevailing price of Kodak Minilab System 22XL as of January 8, 1992 is at ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND PESOS.
6. Price is subject to change without prior notice.
* Secured with PDCs; 1st monthly amortization due 45 days after installation[.]8cralawlawlibrary
The second paragraph of Article 1521 of the Civil Code provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryWhere by a contract of sale the seller is bound to send the goods to the buyer, but no time for sending them is fixed, the seller is bound to send them within a reasonable time.
cralawlawlibrary
What constitutes reasonable time is dependent on the circumstances availing both on the part of the seller and the buyer. In this case, delivery of the first unit was made five (5) days after the date of the agreement. Delivery of the other two (2) units, however, was never made despite the lapse of at least three (3) months.31cralawlawlibrary
Kodak would have the court believe that it did not deliver the other two (2) units due to the failure of defendants to make good the installments subsequent to the second. The court is not convinced. First of all, there should have been simultaneous delivery on account of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. . . . Even after the first delivery ... no delivery was made despite repeated demands from the defendants and despite the fact no installments were due. Then in March and in April (three and four months respectively from the date of the agreement and the first delivery) when the installments due were both honored, still no delivery was made.
Second, although it might be said that Kodak was testing the waters with just one delivery - determining first defendants' capacity to pay - it was not at liberty to do so. It is implicit in the letter agreement that delivery within a reasonable time was of the essence and failure to so deliver within a reasonable time and despite demand would render the vendor in default.
. . . .
Third, at least two (2) checks were honored. If indeed Kodak refused delivery on account of defendants' inability to pay, non-delivery during the two (2) months that payments were honored is unjustified.33cralawlawlibrary
On the other hand, defendants accepted delivery of one (1) unit. Under Article 1522 of the Civil Code, in the event the buyer accepts incomplete delivery and uses the goods so delivered, not then knowing that there would not be any further delivery by the seller, the buyer shall be liable only for the fair value to him of the goods received. In other words, the buyer is still liable for the value of the property received. Defendants were under obligation to pay the amount of the unit. Failure of delivery of the other units did not thereby give unto them the right to suspend payment on the unit delivered. Indeed, in incomplete deliveries, the buyer has the remedy of refusing payment unless delivery is first made. In this case though, payment for the two undelivered units have not even commenced; the installments made were for only one (1) unit.
Hence, Kodak is right to retrieve the unit delivered.34cralawlawlibrary
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the case is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1) PHP 130,000.00 representing the amount of the generator set, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid; and
2) PHP 1,300,000.00 as actual expenses in the renovation of the Tagum, Davao and Rizal Ave., Manila outlets.
SO ORDERED.39ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Assailed Decision dated 26 February 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65 in Civil Case No. 92-3442 is hereby MODIFIED. Plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay the following:SO ORDERED.46 (Emphasis supplied)
- P130,000.00 representing the amount of the generator set, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid; and
- P440.000.00 as actual damages;
- P25,000.00 as moral damages; and
- P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
cralawlawlibrary
In determining the divisibility of an obligation, the following factors may be considered, to wit: (1) the will or intention of the parties, which may be expressed or presumed; (2) the objective or purpose of the stipulated prestation; (3) the nature of the thing; and (4) provisions of law affecting the prestation.
Applying the foregoing factors to this case, We found that the intention of the parties is to be bound separately for each Minilab Equipment to be delivered as shown by the separate purchase price for each of the item, by the acceptance ofSps. Lam of separate deliveries for the first Minilab Equipment and for those of the remaining two and the separate payment arrangements for each of the equipment. Under this premise, Sps. Lam shall be liable for the entire amount of the purchase price of the Minilab Equipment delivered considering that Kodak had already completely fulfilled its obligation to deliver the same.. ..
Third, it is also evident that the contract is one that is severable in character as demonstrated by the separate purchase price for each of the minilab equipment. "If the part to be performed by one party consists in several distinct and separate items and the price is apportioned to each of them, the contract will generally be held to be severable. In such case, each distinct stipulation relating to a separate subject matter will be treated as a separate contract." Considering this, Kodak's breach of its obligation to deliver the other two (2) equipment cannot bar its recovery for the full payment of the equipment already delivered. As far as Kodak is concerned, it had already fully complied with its separable obligation to deliver the first unit of Minilab Equipment.47 (Emphasis supplied)
cralawlawlibrary
The purchase price of said equipment is P1,796,000.00 which, under the agreement is payable with forty eight (48) monthly amortization. It is undisputed that Sps. Lam made payments which amounted to Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P270,000.00) through the following checks: Metrobank Check Nos. 00892620 and 00892621 dated 31 March 1992 and 30 April 1992 respectively in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000.0O) each, and BPI Family Check dated 31 July 1992 amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). This being the case, Sps. Lam are still liable to Kodak in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Pesos (P1,526,000.00), which is payable in several monthly amortization, pursuant to the Letter Agreement. However, Sps. Lam admitted that sometime in May 1992, they had already ordered their drawee bank to stop the payment on all the other checks they had issued to Kodak as payment for the Minilab Equipment delivered to them. Clearly then, Kodak hafdj the right to repossess the said equipment, through this replevin suit. Sps. Lam cannot excuse themselves from paying in full the purchase price of the equipment delivered to them on account of Kodak's breach of the contract to deliver the other two (2) Minilab Equipment, as contemplated in the Letter Agreement.49 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
To rescind is to declare a contract void in its inception and to put an end to it as though it never were. It is not merely to terminate it and to release parties from further obligations to each other but abrogate it from the beginning and restore parties to relative positions which they would have occupied had no contract been made.58cralawlawlibrary
Incentive fee paid to Mr. Ruales in the amount of P100,000.00; the rider to the contract of lease which made the Sps. Lam liable, by way of advance payment, in the amount of P40,000.00, the same being intended for the repair of the flooring of the leased premises; and lastly, the payment of P300,000.00, as compromise agreement for the pre-termination of the contract of lease with Ruales.60cralawlawlibrary
In seeking recovery of the Minilab Equipment, Kodak cannot be considered to have manifested bad faith and malevolence because as earlier ruled upon, it was well within its right to do the same. However, with respect to the seizure of the generator set, where Kodak misrepresented to the court a quo its alleged right over the said item, Kodak's bad faith and abuse of judicial processes become self-evident. Considering the off-setting circumstances attendant, the amount of P25,000.00 by way of moral damages is considered sufficient.
In addition, so as to serve as an example to the public that an application for replevin should not be accompanied by any false claims and misrepresentation, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages should be pegged against Kodak.
With respect to the attorney's fees and litigation expenses, We find that there is no basis to award Sps. Lam the amount sought for.63cralawlawlibrary
Going over the Decision, specifically page 12 thereof, the Court noted that, in addition to the amount of Two Hundred Seventy Thousand (P270,000.00) which plaintiff-appellant should return to the defendants-appellants, the Court also ruled that defendants-appellants should, in turn, relinquish possession of the Minilab Equipment and the standard accessories to plaintiff-appellant. Inadvertently, these material items were not mentioned in the decretal portion of the Decision. Hence, the proper correction should herein be made.65cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolved that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A. Plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
B. The decretal portion of the 30 March 2005 Decision should now read as follows:"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Assailed Decision dated 26 February 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65 in Civil Cases No. 92-3442 is hereby MODIFIED. Plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay the following:SO ORDERED.68 (Emphasis in the original)a. P270,000.00 representing the partial payment made on the Minilab equipment.Upon the other hand, defendants-appellants are hereby ordered to return to plaintiff-appellant the Minilab equipment and the standard accessories delivered by plaintiff-appellant.
b. P130,000.00 representing the amount of the generator set, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid;
c. P440,000.00 as actual damages;
d. P25,000.00 as moral damages; and
e. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED."
cralawlawlibrary
The three (3) Minilab Equipment are intended by petitioners LAM for install[a]tion at their Tagum, Davao del Norte, Sta. Cruz, Manila and Cotabato City outlets. Each of these units [is] independent from one another, as many of them may perform its own job without the other. Clearly the objective or purpose of the prestation, the obligation is divisible.
The nature of each unit of the three (3) Minilab Equipment is such that one can perform its own functions, without awaiting for the other units to perform and complete its job. So much so, the nature of the object of the Letter Agreement is susceptible of partial performance, thus the obligation is divisible.90cralawlawlibrary
This confirms our verbal agreement for Kodak Phils., Ltd. to provide Colorkwik Laboratories, Inc. with three (3) units Kodak Minilab System 22XL . . . for your proposed outlets in Rizal Avenue (Manila), Tagum (Davao del Norte), and your existing Multicolor photo counter in Cotabato City under the following terms and conditions:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Said Minilab Equipment packages will avail a total of 19% multiple order discount based on prevailing equipment price provided said equipment packages will be purchased not later than June 30, 1992.
2. 19% Multiple Order Discount shall be applied in the form of merchandise and delivered in advance immediately after signing of the contract.
* Also includes start-up packages worth P61,000.00.
3. NO DOWNPAYMENT.
4. Minilab Equipment Package shall be payable in 48 monthly installments at THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00) inclusive of 24% interest rate for the first 12 months; the balance shall be re-amortized for the remaining 36 months and the prevailing interest shall be applied.
5. Prevailing price of Kodak Minilab System 22XL as of January 8, 1992 is at ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND PESOS.
6. Price is subject to change without prior notice.
*Secured with PDCs; 1st monthly amortization due 45 days after installation[.]98cralawlawlibrary
Article 1225. For the purposes of the preceding articles, obligations to give definite things and those which are not susceptible of partial performance shall be deemed to be indivisible.
When the obligation has for its object the execution of a certain number of days of work, the accomplishment of work by metrical units, or analogous things which by their nature are susceptible of partial performance, it shall be divisible.
However, even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
An obligation is indivisible when it cannot be validly performed in parts, whatever may be the nature of the thing which is the object thereof. The indivisibility refers to the prestation and not to the object thereof. In the present case, the Deed of Sale of January 29, 1970 supposedly conveyed the six lots to Natividad. The obligation is clearly indivisible because the performance of the contract cannot be done in parts, otherwise the value of what is transferred is diminished. Petitioners are therefore mistaken in basing the indivisibility of a contract on the number of obligors.102 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)cralawlawlibrary
The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfilment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfilment, if the latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
cralawlawlibrary
Rescission abrogates the contract from its inception and requires a mutual restitution of benefits received.
. . . .
Rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary
As discussed earlier, the breach committed by petitioners was the nonperformance of a reciprocal obligation, not a violation of the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract. Therefore, the automatic rescission and forfeiture of payment clauses stipulated in the contract does not apply. Instead, Civil Code provisions shall govern and regulate the resolution of this controversy.
Considering that the rescission of the contract is based on Article 1191 of the Civil Code, mutual restitution is required to bring back the parties to their original situation prior to the inception of the contract. Accordingly, the initial payment of P800.000 and the corresponding mortgage payments in the amounts of P27,225, P23.000 and P23.925 (totaling P874,150.00) advanced by petitioners should be returned by private respondents, lest the latter unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the former.110] (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
. . . .
For the same reason, we would ordinarily disregard the petitioner's allegation as to the propriety of the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent as it is a question of fact. Thus, questions on whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence to justify the award of damages or whether or not there was a causal connection between the given set of facts and the damage suffered by the private complainant or whether or not the act from which civil liability might arise exists are questions of fact.
Essentially, the petitioner is questioning the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent as the same is supposedly not fully supported by evidence. However, in the final analysis, the question of whether the said award is fully supported by evidence is a factual question as it would necessitate whether the evidence adduced in support of the same has any probative value. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.120 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary
Since both parties were in default in the performance of their respective reciprocal obligations, that is, Island Savings Bank failed to comply with its obligation to furnish the entire loan and Sulpicio M. Tolentino failed to comply with his obligation to pay his P17,000.00 debt within 3 years as stipulated, they are both liable for damages.
Article 1192 of the Civil Code provides that in case both parties have committed a breach of their reciprocal obligations, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. WE rule that the liability of Island Savings Bank for damages in not furnishing the entire loan is offset by the liability of Sulpicio M. Tolentino for damages, in the form of penalties and surcharges, for not paying his overdue P17,000.00 debt. The liability of Sulpicio M. Tolentino for interest on his P17,000.00 debt shall not be included in offsetting the liabilities of both parties. Since Sulpicio M. Tolentino derived some benefit for his use of the P17,000.00, it is just that he should account for the interest thereon.126 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Furthermore, we affirm the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Exemplary damages may be awarded when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner which would justify an award of exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code. Since the award of exemplary damages is proper in this case, attorney's fees and cost of the suit may also be recovered as provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.132 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)cralawlawlibrary
(a) | P270,000.00, representing the partial payment made on the Minilab Equipment; |
(b) | P130,000.00, representing the amount of the generator set, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid; |
(c) | P440,000.00 as actual damages; |
(d) | P25,000.00 as moral damages; |
(e) | P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and |
(f) | P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 58-75. The case, docketed as CA-G.R. No. CV-64158, was entitled Kodak Philippines, Ltd. v. Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam.
2 Id. at 423.
3 Id. at 76-79. The Decision was penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos of Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City.
4 Id. at 74-75.
5 Id. at 462, 468, 469, and 472-473.
6 Id. at 76. The Kodak Minilab System 22XL is a Noritsu QSS 1501 with 430-2 Film Processor (non plumbed) with standard accessories.
7 Id. at 76.
8 Id. at 94.
9 Id. at 76.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 106. In the letter dated October 14, 2002, Kodak Philippines, Ltd., through counsel, demanded from the Lam Spouses the surrender of possession of the delivered unit of the Minilab Equipment and its accessories. The letter stated that failure to comply will prompt Kodak Philippines, Ltl. to file a case for recovery of possession.
16 Id. at 68.
17 Id. In the Lam Spouses' Petition for Review, the checks were issued in favor of Kodak Philippines, Ltd. on March 9, 1992, the same day the first unit was delivered, in accordance with the Letter Agreement which provided that the first check would be due 45 days after the installation of the system (Id. at 13).
18 Id. at 19-20.
19 Id. at 76.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 439.
24 Id. at 76
25 Id.
26 Id. at 77.
27 Id. at 113.
28 Id. at 77.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 77-78.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 78. Civil CODE, art. 1522: "Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them, but if the buyer accepts or retains the goods so delivered, knowing that the seller is not going to perform the contract in full, he must pay for them at the contract rate. If, however, the buyer has used or disposed of the goods delivered before he knows that the seller is not going to perform his contract in full, the buyer shall not be liable for more than the fair value to him of the goods so received. Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods larger than he contracted to sell, the buyer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest. If the buyer accepts the whole of the goods so delivered he must pay for them at the contract rate. Where the seller delivers to the buyer the goods he contracted to sell mixed with goods of a different description not included in the contract, the buyer may accept the goods which are in accordance with the contract and reject the rest.
In the preceding two paragraphs, if the subject matter is indivisible, the buyer may reject the whole of the goods.
The provisions of this article are subject to any usage of trade, special agreement, or course of dealing between the parties, (n)"
35 Id.
36 Id
37 Id. at 80.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 23.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 129. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and concurred in by Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Regalado E. Maambong of the Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 130. A Partial Entry of Judgment was issued by the Court of Appeals on January 4, 2003.
45 Id. at 58-75. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas R Bersamin (now an Associate Justice of this court) and Rosalinda Asuncion- Vicente of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
46 Id. at 74-75.
47 Id. at 66-67, citing 4 ARTURO TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OFTHE PHILIPPINES, 255-257 (1995 ed.).
48 Id. at 64.
49 Id. at 64-65.
50 Id. at 65.
51 Id. at 65-66.
52 Id. at 68.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Id. at 69.
57 Id. at 68.
58 Id. at 69.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 71.
61 Id. at 71-72.
62 Id. at 73.
63 Id. at 73-74.
64 Id. at 368-371.
65 Id. at 369.
66 Id. at 385.
67 Id. at 367. The Amended Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now an Associate Justice of this court) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
68 Id. at 370-371.
69 Id. at 393.
70 Id. at 384-388.
71 Id. at 383-A.
72 Id. at 383-B.
73 Id. at 504.
74 Td. at 446-456.
75 Id. at 449.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 450.
78 Id. at 450-453.
79 Id. at 30-31 and 453.
80 Id. at 455.
81 Id. at 456.
82 Id. at 455-456.
83 Id. at 456.
84 Id. at 460.
85 Id. at 462.
86 Id. at 468-469.
87 Id. at 472-473.
88 Id. at 548.
89 Id. at 548-549.
90 Id. at 549.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id. at 550.
94 Id at 551.
95 Id. at 552.
96 Id. at 554.
97 Id. at 94.
98 Id. at 94.
99 Id. at 356. Aside from the Letter Agreement, the 19% Multiple Order Discount was also contained in the Sample Computation supplied by respondent to petitioner.
100 Id. at 66.
101 397 Phil. 707 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
102 Id. at 729.
103 CIVIL CODE, art. 1458 - By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver the determinate thing, and the other to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent.
104 Province of Cebu v. Heirs of Morales, 569 Phil. 641 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
105Rollo, p. 68.
106 Id.
107 Laperal v. Southridge, 499 Phil. 367 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, Third Division].
108 413 Phil. 360 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
109 Id. at 363-375.
110 Id. at 375.
111 J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International, Inc., G.R. No. 162802, October 9, 2013, 707 SCRA 133 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
112 Id. See also University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles, 146 Phil. 108 (1970) [Per J. J. B. L. Reyes, Second Division].
113 Id.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. l.
117Frondarina v. Malazarte, 539 Phil. 279 (2006) [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].
118Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corporation, 540 Phil. 503 (2006) [Per J. Quisumbing, Third Division].
119Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., 681 Phil. 39 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
120 Id, at 48-50.
121 Rollo, pp. 70-73.
122 Id. at 71.
123 Id. at 52.
124 Article 1192. In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his won damages.
125 223 Phil. 266 (1985) [Per C.J. Makasiar, Second Division].
126 Id. at 276-277.
127Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., 681 Phil. 39 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
128 Id.
129Sunbanun v. Go, 625 Phil. 159 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
130 Rollo, p. 74.
131 625 Phil. 159 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
132 Id. at 166-167.