Perez vs. Pomar

An implied contract arises when one party accepts and benefits from the services of another, creating a reciprocal obligation to pay reasonable compensation therefor, in accordance with the principle that no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.

The case arose during the Philippine-American War, a period of insurrection and disturbed conditions in Laguna province. The defendant, as agent for a commercial company, required interaction with military authorities. The plaintiff, who could speak English, provided interpreter services to facilitate these interactions.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Sixth Judicial District).
• The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $600, less $50 Mexican.
• The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court (as the court of last resort at the time).

• Vicente Perez (plaintiff) alleged that Eugenio Pomar (defendant), agent of the Compañia General de Tabacos, verbally requested him on December 8, 1901, to act as an interpreter between Pomar and military authorities.
• Perez rendered these services from December 8, 1901, to May 31, 1902, accompanying Pomar to various conferences.
• Perez claimed he abandoned his own soap factory business to be constantly available, relying on Pomar's assurances that the company generously repaid services.
• Pomar denied requesting or employing Perez as an interpreter. He claimed Perez accompanied him on trips out of friendship and offered services voluntarily and officiously.
• Pomar admitted accepting the services but argued he did so in his private capacity, not as the company's agent, and without any offer of payment.

• No legal relationship existed between Perez and the company or Pomar as its agent.
• Perez's services were spontaneous, voluntary, and officious, rendered without request or promise of compensation.
• Pomar accepted any services in his individual capacity, not as the company's agent.
• The suit was improper as it was against Pomar individually for services allegedly rendered to the company.

• Services were rendered at the defendant's request and with the understanding of compensation.
• The defendant, having accepted and benefited from the services, is obligated to pay their reasonable value.
• The defendant's promises and assurances created an obligation.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the suit was properly maintained against Pomar in his individual capacity when he answered without objecting to being sued as the company's agent.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether an enforceable contract existed between the parties for the rendition of interpreter services.
  2. Whether the defendant is obligated to pay for the services rendered, absent an express agreement on compensation.

• Procedural: The SC held the case was properly decided between Perez and Pomar. Pomar, having been summoned and having answered the complaint (amended to sue him as the company's agent) without objection and concluding by asking for dismissal in his individual capacity, had accepted the issue. The SC construed the statutes liberally to decide the case on its merits.
• Substantive:
  1. Yes. An implied or innominate contract (facio ut des) existed. The SC found tacit and mutual consent: the services were rendered with Pomar's consent and accepted by him. This created a bilateral obligation to pay for the services (Arts. 1088, 1089, 1262, Civil Code).
  2. Yes. The defendant is obligated to pay a reasonable sum. The SC applied the principle that no one should enrich himself to the damage of another. Since the services were not gratuitous and were accepted for the defendant's benefit, a just compensation was due. The court could determine the reasonable value based on custom and usage, as the price was capable of being made certain (Art. 1544, Civil Code).

• Implied Contract / Innominate Contract (facio ut des) — A contract arising from tacit consent, not from express words but from the conduct of the parties. The SC held that the acceptance and use of services, even if solicited by one party and offered by the other, creates a consensual bond giving rise to reciprocal obligations.
• Unjust Enrichment / Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest — The principle that no one should be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense. The SC used this as a foundational reason to impose liability for the reasonable value of services accepted and used.
• Elements of a Contract (Art. 1261, Civil Code) — The SC confirmed the presence of consent (tacit agreement), object (service as interpreter), and cause (reciprocal benefit) for a contract to exist.

• "Whether the service was solicited or offered, the fact remains that Perez rendered to Pomar services as interpreter. As it does not appear that he did this gratuitously, the duty is imposed upon the defendant, having accepted the benefit of the service, to pay a just compensation therefor, by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des implicitly established."
• "...it is a well-known principle of law that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the damage of another."

• Supreme Court of Spain, Decision of February 12, 1889 — Cited for the proposition that presumptive consent, the basis of quasi-contracts, gives rise to juridical relations and obligations.
• Supreme Court of Spain, Decision of October 18, 1899 — Cited to support the court's discretionary power to determine the reasonable value of services based on custom and usage when no fixed price was agreed upon.

• Articles 1088, 1089, Civil Code — On obligations arising from law and contracts.
• Article 1254, Civil Code — A contract exists the moment one or more persons consent to be bound.
• Article 1255, Civil Code — Freedom of parties to establish stipulations, clauses, and conditions.
• Article 1258, Civil Code — Consent is shown by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance.
• Article 1261, Civil Code — Requisites for a valid contract: consent, object certain, and cause.
• Article 1262, Civil Code — Consent is manifested by the meeting of offer and acceptance.
• Article 1271, Civil Code — Things or services not contrary to law or morals may be the object of a contract.
• Article 1544, Civil Code — Definition of a contract for lease of services (one party renders a service for a certain price).
• Article 1280, Civil Code (referenced) — Contracts that must appear in writing. The SC found the implied contract did not fall under this requirement.

• N/A (The majority opinion is the only one detailed; concurring justices are listed without separate opinion text).

• McDonough, J. (Dissenting) — Disagreed on the amount of recovery, stating there was no legal evidence to support the award of 200 Mexican pesos. He favored affirming the lower court's judgment.