Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    NAPOCOR V DAYRIT

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    The NPC refused to implement a new security services contract it entered into as part of a compromise agreement to settle a lawsuit by Daniel Roxas. The NPC claimed the new contract was a novation that replaced the original contract. However, the court found there was no novation because (1) the compromise agreement did not explicitly state the new contract was a novation, and (2) the old and new contracts were not incompatible in every aspect, as they must be for a novation. As novation was not established, the NPC was obligated to implement the new contract as agreed in the compromise agreement to settle the original lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    NAPOCOR V DAYRIT

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    48 views1 page
    The NPC refused to implement a new security services contract it entered into as part of a compromise agreement to settle a lawsuit by Daniel Roxas. The NPC claimed the new contract was a novation that replaced the original contract. However, the court found there was no novation because (1) the compromise agreement did not explicitly state the new contract was a novation, and (2) the old and new contracts were not incompatible in every aspect, as they must be for a novation. As novation was not established, the NPC was obligated to implement the new contract as agreed in the compromise agreement to settle the original lawsuit.

    Original Title

    NAPOCOR v DAYRIT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The NPC refused to implement a new security services contract it entered into as part of a compromise agreement to settle a lawsuit by Daniel Roxas. The NPC claimed the new contract was a novation that replaced the original contract. However, the court found there was no novation because (1) the compromise agreement did not explicitly state the new contract was a novation, and (2) the old and new contracts were not incompatible in every aspect, as they must be for a novation. As novation was not established, the NPC was obligated to implement the new contract as agreed in the compromise agreement to settle the original lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    NAPOCOR V DAYRIT

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    The NPC refused to implement a new security services contract it entered into as part of a compromise agreement to settle a lawsuit by Daniel Roxas. The NPC claimed the new contract was a novation that replaced the original contract. However, the court found there was no novation because (1) the compromise agreement did not explicitly state the new contract was a novation, and (2) the old and new contracts were not incompatible in every aspect, as they must be for a novation. As novation was not established, the NPC was obligated to implement the new contract as agreed in the compromise agreement to settle the original lawsuit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LCP

    SUBJECT: Obligations and Contracts


    TOPIC: Novation

    NPC v Dayrit
    L-62845-46 November 25, 1983

    GENERAL RULE OF LAW/DOCTRINE

    It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest
    incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect.

    FACTS
     Private Respondent Daniel Roxas, doing business under the name of United Veterans Security
    Agency and Foreign Boats Watchmen, sued the NPC and two of its officers. The purpose of the
    suit was to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the
    former had terminated.

     Litigants entered into a Compromise Agreement and they asked the Court to approve it with the
    ff terms:
    o defendant National Power Corporation shall pay to plaintiff the sum of P7,277.45
    o defendant shall pay plaintiff the value of the line materials
    o The parties shall continue with the contract of security services under the same terms
    and;
    o The parties waive all their respective claims
    o The parties agree to faithfully comply with the foregoing agreement.

     NPC executed another contract for security services with Josette Roxas whose relationship to
    Daniel is not shown. At any rate Daniel has owned the contract.

     The NPC refused to implement the new contract for which reason Daniel filed a Motion for
    Execution --- Respondent judge issued writ of execution.

     NPC assails the Order on the ground that it directs execution of a contract which had been
    novated by that of 1982.

     Roxas claims that said contract was executed precisely to implement the compromise agreement
    for which reason there was no novation. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUES AND RULINGS

    WON there was novation? NO

    In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement which supports the petitioner's
    contention. There is neither explicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and the
    "new" agreements.

    It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest
    incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect.

    RELEVANT LAWS APPLICABLE

    Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is
    imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every
    point incompatible with each other.

    1
    <CLASS NAME e.g.CRIM, CONSTI, LEGRES, STATCON, PERSONS>
    <Case Title> by <Your Name>

    You might also like