Arrieta vs. Naric
Arrieta vs. Naric
Arrieta vs. Naric
FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s
The appellee sent a letter to the appellant, demanding compensation
for the damages caused her in the sum of $286,000.00, U.S. currency,
representing unrealized profit. The appellee endeavored, but failed, to
restore the cancelled Burmese rice allocation.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s
Appellant corporation disclaims responsibility for the delay in the
opening of the letter of credit. On the contrary, it insists that the fault lies
with the appellee. Appellant contends that the disputed negotiable
instrument was not promptly secured because the appellee, failed to
seasonably furnish data necessary and required for opening the same,
namely, "(1) the amount of the letter of credit, (2) the person, company or
corporation in whose favor it is to be opened, and (3) the place and bank
where it may be negotiated."
ISSUE/s
Whether or not NARIC is liable for damages for breach of contract
due its failure to open immediately the letter of credit.
HELD
4. Disposition of the case
The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the sole
modification that the award should be converted into the Philippine peso at
the rate of exchange prevailing at the time the obligation was incurred or
on July 1, 1952, when the contract was executed.
5. Dictum
Every debtor who fails in performance of his obligations is bound to
indemnify for the losses and damages caused. The phrase “any manner
contravenes the tenor” of the obligation includes any illicit act which
impairs the strict and faithful fulfillment of the obligation or every kind or
defective performance. The court, after carefully examined and studied the
oral and documentary evidence presented in this case and upon which the
lower court based its award. Under the contract, the NARIC bound itself to
buy 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice at “$203.00 U.S. Dollars per metric
ton, all net shipped weight, and all in U.S. currency, C.I.F. Manila …” On
the other hand, documentary and other evidence establish with equal
certainty that the plaintiff-appellee was able to secure the contracted
commodity at the cost price of $180.70 per metric ton from her supplier in
Burma. Considering freights, insurance, and charges incident to its
shipment here and the forfeiture of the 5% deposit, the award granted by
the lower court is fair and equitable. For a clearer view of the equity of the
damages awarded.