Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DE LA CRUZ V NORTHERN
THEATRIAL ENTERPRISES
FACTS:
*The
Northern
Theatrical
Enterprises, a domestic corporation
opearated a movie house in Laoag,
Ilocos Norte and among the persons
employed by it was plaintiff De La Cruz,
hired as special guard whose duties were
to guard the main entrance of the cine, to
maintain peace and order and to report
the commission of disorder within the
premises
*As such guard, he carried a
revolver
* One Benjamin Martin wanted
to crash the gate or entrance of the
movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of
plaintiff to let him in without first
providing himself with a ticket, Martin
attacked him with a bolo
*Plaintiff defended himself until
he was cornered, at which moment to
save himself, he shot gate crasher
resulting in latters death
*Plaintiff was charged with
homicide but was acquitted of charge
after trial. In both criminal cases against
him, he employed a lawyer to defend
him
*He then demanded from NLE
reimbursement of expenses but was
refused thus filed present action against
the company and t3 members of its
Board of Directors to recover not only
the amounts he had paid his lawyers but
also moral damages said to have been
suffered due to his worry, neglect of his
interests and his family as well in the
supervision of the cultivation of his land,
a total of P 15,000.
*CFI rejected plaintiffs theory
that he was an agent of the company and
that he had no cause of action and
dismissed the complaint
5. BORDADOR V LUZ
FACTS:
* Petitioners were engaged in the
business of purchase and sale of jewelry
and respondent Brigida Luz, also known
as Aida Luz, was their regular customer.
*
On
several
occasions,
respondent Deganos, brother of Luz,
received several pieces of gold and
jewelry from petitioners amounting to
P382, 816. These items and their prices
were indicated in seventeen receipts
covering the same. 11 of the receipts
stated that they were received for a
certain Aquino, a niece of Deganos, and
the remaining 6 receipts indicated that
they were received for Luz.
* Deganos was supposed to sell
the items at a profit and thereafter remit
the proceeds and return the unsold items
to Bordador. Deganos remitted only the
sum of P53, 207. He neither paid the
balance of the sales proceeds, nor did he
return any unsold item to petitioners.
* The total of his unpaid account
to Bordador, including interest, reached
the sum of P725, 463.98. Petitioners
eventually filed a complaint in the
barangay court against Deganos to
recover said amount.
* In the barangay proceedings,
Luz, who was not impleaded in the caes,
appeared as a witness for Deganos and
ultimately, she and her husband, together
with Deganos signed a compromise
agreement with petitioners.
*In that compromise agreement,
Deganos obligated himself to pay
petitioners, on installment basis , the
6. DE LA PENA V HIDALGO
FACTS:
* De la Pena y de Ramon and De
Ramon, in her own behalf and as the
legal guardian of her son Roberto De la
Pena, filed in the CFI a written
complaint against Hidalgos
* De La Pena y de Ramon, as the
judicial administrator of the estate of the
deceased De la Pena y Gomiz, with the
consent of the court filed a second
amended complaint prosecuting his
action solely against Frederico Hidalgo
* CFI ruled in favor of plainiffadministrator for the sum of P13, 606.19
HERMANOS
FACTS:
* Duran, a nephew of Orense,
with the latters knowledge and consent,
executed before a notary a public
instrument whereby he sold and
conveyed to plaintiff company for
P1,500 the said property
* The vendor, Duran reserving to
himself the right to repurchase it for the
same price within a period of 4 years
from the date of said instrument
* That plaintiff company had not
entered into possession of the purchased
property, owing to its continued
occupancy by Orense and his nephew,
Duran by virtue of a contract of lease
executed by the plaintiff to Duran
*said instrument of sale was
publicly and freely confirmed and
ratified by Orense in a verbal declaration
made by him
*that, in order to perfect the title
to the said property, the plaintiff had to
demand of Orense that he execute in
legal form a deed of conveyance of the
property, but that the defendant Orense
refused to do so, without any justifiable
cause or reason
This suit involves the validity
and efficacy of the sale under right of
redemption of a parcel of land and a
masonry house with a nipa hut erected
thereon, effected by Duran, a nephew of
the owner of the property, Orense for the
sum of P1,500 by means of a notarial
instrument
After the lapse of 4 years
stipulated for the redemption, Orense
refused to deliver the property to the