PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest
Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil. 682 (1903)
March 12, 2016
FACTS
Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner.
ISSUE
Whether or not consent has been given by the other party.
HELD
Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of services. This gives rise to the delegation upon the person benefited by the services to make compensation thereof, since the bilateral obligation to render services as interpreter, on the one hand, and on the other to pay for the services rendered is thereby incurred.
As was held in the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1889, it stated that “not only is there an express and tacit consent which produces real contract but there is also a presumptive consent which is the basis of quasi-contracts this giving rise to the multiple judicial relations which result in obligations for the delivery of a thing or the rendition of a service.
March 12, 2016
FACTS
Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner.
ISSUE
Whether or not consent has been given by the other party.
HELD
Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of services. This gives rise to the delegation upon the person benefited by the services to make compensation thereof, since the bilateral obligation to render services as interpreter, on the one hand, and on the other to pay for the services rendered is thereby incurred.
As was held in the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1889, it stated that “not only is there an express and tacit consent which produces real contract but there is also a presumptive consent which is the basis of quasi-contracts this giving rise to the multiple judicial relations which result in obligations for the delivery of a thing or the rendition of a service.
Comments
Post a Comment