Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendant-Appellant Bishop & O'Brien, Attorney-General Wilfley

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909.]
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee,

vs . GEORGE I. FRANK , defendant-appellant.
Bishop & O'Brien, for appellant.

Attorney-General Wilfley, for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CONTRACTS; GOVERNMENT CONTRACT NOT PREJUDICED BY

SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF THE LAW. — A contract made between the
Government of the Philippine Islands and an employee, under the provisions of Acts
Nos. 80 and 224, is not affected by any subsequent amendment of said Acts. The
legislative department of the Government is expressly prohibited by section 5 of the
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, from altering or changing the terms of a contract.
2. ID.; EXECUTION; INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY; REMEDIES. — No rule
is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and
validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made.
(Scudder vs. Union National Bank, 91 U. S., 406.) Matters connected with performance
are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Remedies, such as the
bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and the statute of limitations, depend upon
the law of the place where the action is brought.
DECISION
JOHNSON , J : p
Judgment was rendered in the lower court on the 5th day of September, 1905.
the defendant appealed. On the 12th day of October, 1905, the appellant led his
printed bill of exceptions with the clerk of the Supreme Court. On the 5th day of
December, 1905, the appellant filed his brief with the clerk of the Supreme Court. On the
19th day of January, 1906, the Attorney-General led his brief in said cause. Nothing
further was done in said cause until on about the 30th day of January, 1909, when the
respective parties were requested by this court to prosecute the appeal under penalty
of having the same dismissed for failure so to do; whereupon the appellant, by petition,
had the cause placed upon the calendar and the same was heard on the 2d day of
February, 1909.
The facts from the record appear to be as follows:
First. That on or about the 17th day of April, 1903, in the city of Chicago, in the
State of Illinois, in the United States, the defendant, through a representative of the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, entered into a contract for a period of two
years with the plaintiff, by which the defendant was to receive a salary of 1,200 dollars
per year as a stenographer in the service of the said plaintiff, and in addition thereto
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
was to be paid in advance the expenses incurred in traveling from the said city of
Chicago to Manila, and one-half salary during said period of travel.
Second. Said contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its
terms on the part of the defendant, he should become liable to the plaintiff for the
amount expended by the Government by way of expenses incurred in traveling from
Chicago to Manila and the one-half salary paid during such period.
Third. The defendant entered upon the performance of his contract upon the
30th day of April, 1903, and was paid half-salary from the date until June 4, 1903, the
date of his arrival in the Philippine Islands.
Fourth. That on the 11th day of February, 1904, the defendant left the service of
the plaintiff and refused to make a further compliance with the terms of the contract.
Fifth. On the 3d day of December, 1904, the plaintiff commenced an action in the
Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover from the defendant the sum of
269.23 dollars, which amount the plaintiff claimed had been paid to the defendant as
expenses incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila, and as half-salary for the period
consumed in travel.
Sixth. It was expressly agreed between the parties to said contract that Laws No.
80 and No. 224 should constitute a part of said contract.
To the complaint of the plaintiff the defendant led a general denial and a special
defense, alleging in his special defense that the Government of the Philippine Islands
had amended Laws No. 80 and No. 224 and had thereby materially altered the said
contract, and also that he was a minor at the time the contract was entered into and
was therefore not responsible under the law.
To the special defense of the defendant the plaintiff led a demurrer, which
demurrer the court sustained.
Upon the issue thus presented, and after hearing the evidence adduced during
the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered a judgment against the defendant and in
favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 265.90 dollars. The lower court found that at the
time the defendant quit the service of the plaintiff there was due him from the said
plaintiff the sum of 3.33 dollars, leaving a balance due the plaintiff in the sum of 265.90
dollars. From this judgment the defendant appealed and made the following
assignments of error:
1. The court erred in sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's special
defenses.
2. The court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant on the facts.
With reference to the above assignments of error, it may be said that the mere
fact that the legislative department of the Government of the Philippine Islands had
amended said Acts No. 80 and No. 224 by Acts No. 643 and No. 1040 did not have the
effect of changing the terms of the contract made between the plaintiff and the
defendant. The legislative department of the Government is expressly prohibited by
section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1902 from altering or changing the terms of a
contract. The right which the defendant had acquired by virtue of Acts No. 80 and No.
224 had not been changed in any respect by the fact that said laws had been amended.
These acts, constituting the terms of the contract, still constituted a part of said
contract and were enforceable in favor of the defendant.
The defendant alleged in his special defense that he was a minor and therefore
the contract could not be enforced against him. The record discloses that, at the time
the contract was entered into in the State of Illinois, he was an adult under the laws of
that State and had full authority to contract. The plaintiff [the defendant] claims that, by
reason of the fact that, under that laws of the Philippine Islands at the time the contract
was made, made persons in said Islands did not reach their majority until they had
attained the age of 23 years, he was not liable under said contract, contending that the
laws of the Philippine Islands governed. It is not disputed — upon the contrary the fact
is admitted — that at the time and place of the making of the contract in question the
defendant had full capacity to make the same. No rule is better settled in law than that
matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are
determined b the law of the place where the contract is made. (Scudder vs. Union
National Bank, 91 U. S., 406.) Matters connected with its performance are regulated by
the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as
the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon
the law of the place where the suit is brought. (Idem.)
The defendant's claim that he was an adult when he left Chicago but was a minor
when he arrived at Manila; that he was an adult a the time he made the contract but was
a minor at the time the plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract, more than a year
later, is not tenable.
Our conclusions with reference to the rst above assignment of error are,
therefore.
First. That the amendments to Acts No. 80 and No. 224 in no way affected the
terms of the contract in question; and
Second. The plaintiff [defendant] being fully quali ed to enter into the contract at
the place and time the contract was made, he can not plead infancy as a defense at the
place where the contract is being enforced.
We believe that the above conclusions also dispose of the second assignment of
error.
For the reasons above stated, the judgment of the lower court is a rmed, with
costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendant-Appellant Bishop & O'Brien, Attorney-General Wilfley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendant-Appellant Bishop & O'Brien, Attorney-General Wilfley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Defendant-Appellant Bishop & O'Brien, Attorney-General Wilfley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909.]

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee,

Bishop & O'Brien, for appellant.

1. CONTRACTS; GOVERNMENT CONTRACT NOT PREJUDICED BY

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like