Go vs. Ong

A videographer who erases the only video record of a client's wedding is liable for moral and exemplary damages for breach of contract committed in bad faith or with wanton negligence. The contract for wedding video coverage is one for services, not for the video equipment used, and the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days, contrary to the parties' agreement that it would be claimed upon the clients' return from their honeymoon, constitutes actionable delay and contravention of the obligation. A married woman who enters into a contract in the exercise of her profession or business is solely liable thereon, contracts producing effect only between the parties who execute them.

Private respondents Hermogenes and Jane Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City, and contracted petitioners to provide video coverage of their wedding at a price of P1,650.00. The wedding video held significant sentimental value as the only record of an event that the Constitution protects as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family. The newlyweds planned to show the video to relatives in the United States where they were to spend their honeymoon.

Private respondents Hermogenes and Jane Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. Petitioners Nancy Go and Alex Go provided the video coverage of the wedding at a contract price of P1,650.00. Three times after the wedding, the newlyweds tried to claim the video tape of their wedding, which they planned to show to their relatives in the United States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and thrice they failed because the tape was apparently not yet processed. The parties then agreed that the tape would be ready upon private respondents' return from their honeymoon.

When private respondents came home from their honeymoon, they discovered that the tape had been erased by petitioners and could no longer be delivered. Furious at the loss of the tape, which was supposed to be the only record of their wedding, private respondents filed on September 23, 1981 a complaint for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City.

Petitioners contended that the cameraman was employed by a certain Pablo Lim, who also owned the video equipment used, and that they merely received a commission for all customers solicited for their principal. They argued that under Article 1883 of the Civil Code, since the agent acted in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the persons with whom the agent contracted. Petitioners also insisted that they lacked malice or fraudulent intent in erasing the tape, claiming that since private respondents did not claim the tape after the lapse of thirty days, as agreed upon in their contract, the erasure was done in consonance with consistent business practice to minimize losses.

The trial court found petitioners jointly and severally liable, awarding P450.00 as reimbursement of the down payment, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on September 14, 1993.

• Agency Defense: Petitioners argued that they acted only as agents of a certain Pablo Lim, who employed the cameraman and owned the video equipment, and that they merely received a commission for customers solicited for their principal. They invoked Article 1883 of the Civil Code, contending that since the contract involved things belonging to the principal, the principal, not the agents, should be bound.

• Lack of Bad Faith: Petitioners averred that there was no evidence to show that the erasure of the tape was done in bad faith so as to justify the award of damages. They insisted that since private respondents did not claim the tape after the lapse of thirty days, as agreed upon in their contract, the erasure was done in consonance with consistent business practice to minimize losses.

• Absolution of Alex Go: Petitioner Alex Go questioned the finding of the trial and appellate courts holding him jointly and severally liable with his wife Nancy, arguing that when his wife entered into the contract with private respondents, she was acting alone for her sole interest.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the arguments of the private respondents beyond their filing of the complaint for specific performance and damages.

• Agency Liability: Whether petitioners can evade liability by claiming they acted merely as agents of Pablo Lim, who owned the video equipment used.
• Bad Faith in Erasure: Whether the erasure of the wedding video tape was done in bad faith so as to justify the award of moral and exemplary damages.
• Joint Liability of Alex Go: Whether petitioner Alex Go should be held jointly and severally liable with his wife Nancy for the pecuniary liabilities imposed.

• Agency Liability: No. The contract entered into was one of service for the video coverage of the wedding, not for the video equipment used. The use by petitioners of the video equipment of another person is of no consequence, and petitioners failed to present Lim to corroborate their claim of agency.

• Bad Faith in Erasure: Yes. Petitioners were guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video tape, and the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified given the parties' agreement that the tape would be claimed upon private respondents' return from their honeymoon. The award of moral and exemplary damages was proper.

• Joint Liability of Alex Go: No. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation, or engage in business without the consent of the husband. Only Nancy Go entered into the contract with private respondents, and contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them.

• Agency Liability: The Court found petitioners' argument that the contract was actually entered into between private respondents and Lim "not deserving of any serious consideration." The contract was one of service for the video coverage of the wedding, and it could hardly be said that the object of the contract was the video equipment used. The Court also noted that petitioners did not present Lim to corroborate their contention that they were mere agents, and under Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

• Bad Faith in Erasure: The Court found it "contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding," and the fact that private respondents filed a case against petitioners belied their assertion. Petitioners were guilty of actionable delay for failing to process the video tape. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. The Court held that although moral damages generally cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because it is not among those enumerated in Article 2219, liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations. Moral damages are recoverable for breach of contract which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith, oppressive, or abusive. The erasure of the video coverage of the wedding, an event that could no longer be reenacted and was lost forever, was precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had to undergo. The award of exemplary damages was justified to serve as a warning to all entities engaged in the same business to observe due diligence in the conduct of their affairs. The award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses was proper under Article 2208, which allows recovery when exemplary damages are awarded.

• Joint Liability of Alex Go: The Court found merit in Alex Go's contention. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation, or engage in business without the consent of the husband. The Court was convinced that only Nancy Go entered into the contract with private respondents, and pursuant to Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them. Consequently, Nancy Go was solely liable to private respondents for the damages awarded.

• Contract of Service vs. Contract of Equipment — A contract for wedding video coverage is one of service, not for the video equipment used. The use of another person's equipment is of no consequence to the liability of the party who contracted to provide the service.

• Moral Damages in Breach of Contract — Although moral damages generally cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because it is not among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations. Moral damages are recoverable for breach of contract which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith, oppressive, or abusive.

• Wife's Liability in Business Contracts — Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation, or engage in business without the consent of the husband. Contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them, pursuant to Article 1311 of the Civil Code.

• "In the instant case, the contract entered into is one of service, that is, for the video coverage of the wedding. Consequently, it can hardly be said that the object of the contract was the video equipment used. The use by petitioners of the video equipment of another person is of no consequence." — This passage establishes the controlling rule that the contract was for services, not for the equipment, defeating the agency defense.

• "Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video tape. Considering that private respondents were about to leave for the United States, they took care to inform petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified." — This passage articulates the Court's finding of actionable delay and the unjustified nature of the erasure.

• "Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because this case is not among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which violates the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict." — This passage states the doctrinal basis for awarding moral damages in breach of contract cases where the breach also constitutes a quasi-delict.

• "Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In the instant case, we are convinced that it was only petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with private respondent. Consequently, we rule that she is solely liable to private respondents for the damages awarded below, pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them." — This passage establishes the rule on the wife's sole liability for contracts she enters into in the exercise of her profession or business.

• Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968) — Cited as authority for the proposition that liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which violates the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict.

• Article XV, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Cited as the constitutional mandate to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, providing the context for the significance of the wedding video.

• Article 1883, Civil Code — Cited by petitioners in support of their agency defense; the Court effectively rejected its application because the contract was one of service, not involving things belonging to the principal.

• Article 1170, Civil Code — Applied to hold petitioners liable for damages for contravening the tenor of their obligation to deliver the wedding video tape.

• Article 2219, Civil Code — Cited to explain the general rule that moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract, with the exception where the breach also constitutes a quasi-delict.

• Articles 2217 and 2218, Civil Code — Cited as the basis for the award of moral damages for mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights, and humiliation suffered by private respondents.

• Article 2232, Civil Code — Cited as the basis for the award of exemplary damages in view of the wanton negligence committed by petitioners.

• Article 2208, Civil Code — Cited as the basis for the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses, specifically paragraph (1) which allows recovery when exemplary damages are awarded.

• Article 117, Civil Code (now Article 73, Family Code) — Applied to hold that the wife may exercise any profession, occupation, or engage in business without the consent of the husband, and that only Nancy Go was liable on the contract.

• Article 1311, Civil Code — Applied to hold that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them, thus absolving Alex Go from liability.

• Section 3(e), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Cited to support the adverse inference drawn from petitioners' failure to present Pablo Lim as a witness, as evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

Regalado, Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.