81. TOMASA SARMIENTO, petitioner, vs. SPS.

LUIS & ROSE SUN-CABRIDO and

MARIA LOURDES SUN,
respondents.
G.R. No. 141258 April 9, 2003

NATURE
Negligence/Tort

FACTS; Tomasa Sarmientos friend, Dra. Virginia Lao, requested her to find someone to
reset a pair of diamond earrings into two gold rings. Sarmiento sent Tita Payag with the earrings
to Dingdings Jewelry Shop, owned and managed by spouses Luis and Rose Cabrido, which
accepted the job order for P400. Petitioner provided 12 grams of gold to be used in crafting the
pair of ring settings. After 3 days, Payag delivered to the jewelry shop one of the diamond
earrings which was earlier appraised as worth .33 carat and almost perfect in cut and clarity.
Respondent Marilou Sun went on to dismount the diamond from original settings. Unsuccessful,
she asked their goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to do it. He removed the diamond by twisting the
setting with a pair of pliers, breaking the gem in the process. Petitioner required the respondents
to replace the diamond with the same size and quality. When they refused, the petitioner was
forced to buy a replacement in the amount of P30,000.Rose Cabrido, manager, denied having
any transaction with Payag whom she met only after the latter came to seek compensation for the
broken piece of jewelry. Marilou, on the other hand, admitted knowing Payag to avail their
services and recalled that when Santos broke the jewelry, Payag turned to her for reimbursement
thinking she was the owner.

Santos also recalled that Payag requested him to dismount what appeared to him as sapphire and
that the stone accidentally broke. He denied being an employee of the Jewelry shop. The MTCC
of Tagbilaran City rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner.

On appeal, Respondents conceded to the existence of an agreement for crafting a pair of gold
rings mounted with diamonds but denied they had obligation to dismount the diamonds from the
original setting. Petitioner claims that dismounting the diamonds from the original setting was
part of the obligation assumed by respondents under the contract of service. The RTC ruled in
favor of the respondents. CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not dismounting of the diamond from its original setting was part
of the obligation.
2. Whether or not the Respondents are liable for damages
3. Whether or not the Respondents are liable for moral damages

HELD:

1. YES. The contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties reveal the scope of obligation
assumed by the jewelry shop to reset the pair of earrings. Marilou expressed no reservation
regarding the dismounting of the diamonds. She could have instructed Payag to have the
diamonds dismounted first, but instead, she readily accepted the job order and charged P400.
After the new settings were completed, she called petitioner to bring the diamond earrings to be
reset. She examined one of them and went on to dismount the diamond from the original setting.
After failing to do the same, she delegated it to the goldsmith. Having acted the way she did, she
cannot deny that the dismounting was part of the shops obligation to reset the pair of earrings.

2. YES. 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
fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place. Santos acted negligently in dismounting the diamond from its original setting.
Instead of using a miniature wire, which is the practice of the trade, he used a pair of pliers.
Marilou examined the diamond before dismounting and found the same to be in order. The
subsequent breakage could only have been caused by Santos negligence in using the wrong
equipment. Res ipsa loquitur. Facts show that Marilou, who has transacted with Payag on at least
10 occasions, and Santos, who has been accepting job referrals through respondents for 6 mos.
now, are employed at the jewelry shop. The jewelry shop failed to perform its obligation with the
ordinary diligence required by the circumstances.

3. YES. Moral damages may be awarded in a breach of contract when there is proof that
defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in
wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. Santos was a goldsmith for more than 40 years.
He should have known that using a pair of pliers would have entailed unnecessary risk of
breakage. The gross negligence of their employee makes the respondents liable of moral
damages. Petition was granted and CA decision was reversed. Respondents were ordered to pay
P30,000 as actual damages and P10,000 as moral damages.