Tanguilig v. CA, G.R. 266 SCRA 78

Tanguilig v.
CA,
(JACINTO TANGUILIG doing business under the name and style J.M.T. ENGINEERING
AND GENERAL MERCHANDISING, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE
HERCE, JR., respondents)
About this case:

This case involves the proper interpretation of the contract entered into between the parties.
The petitioner failed to show that the collapse of the windmill was due solely to a
fortuitous event. Interestingly, the evidence does not disclose that there was actually a
typhoon on the day the windmill collapsed.
FACTS:
- Petitioner agreed to the construction of the windmill is P60,000.00 with a one-year

guaranty from the date of completion.
- Respondent paid the petitioner a down payment of P30,000.00 and an installment
payment of P15,000.00, leaving a balance of P15,000.00.
- Due to the refusal of respondent to pay the balance, petitioner filed a complaint. In his
Answer, the respondent denied the claim saying that he had already paid this
amount to the San Pedro General Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI) which
constructed the deep well to which the windmill system was to be connected.
According to respondent, since the deep well formed part of the system, the payment
he tendered to SPGMI should be credited to his account by petitioner.
- Assuming that he owed petitioner a balance of P15,000.00, this should be offset by the
defects in the windmill system which caused the structure to collapse after a strong
wind hit their place.
- Petitioner denied that the construction of a deep well was included in the
agreement to build the windmill system, for the contract price of P60,000.00
was solely for the windmill assembly and its installation.
- Petitioner disowned any obligation to repair the system and insisted that he delivered it
in good condition to the respondent who accepted the same without protest. Besides,
its collapse was attributable to a typhoon, a force majeure, which relieved him
of any liability.
- RTC: Held that the construction of the deep well was not part of the windmill project
and that “there is no clear and convincing proof that the windmill system fell down due
to the defect of the construction. “
- CA: Reversed/modified the decision. It ruled that the construction of the deep well was
included in the agreement of the parties because the term “deep well” was mentioned
in both proposals. It also rejected the petitioner’s claim of force majeure and ordered
the latter to reconstruct the windmill in accordance with the stipulated “one-year
guaranty”
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petitioner can claim exemption from liability by reason of a
fortuitous event.
RULING:
1. No. In order for a party to claim exemption from liability by reason of a fortuitous
event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code the event should be the sole and proximate
cause of the loss or destruction of the object of the contract.
Four (4) requisites must concur:
(a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the
will of the debtor;
(b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
(c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and,
(d) the debtor must be free from any participation in or aggravation of the
injury to the creditor.
Petitioner failed to show that the collapse of the windmill was due solely to a fortuitous
event. Interestingly, the evidence does not disclose that there was actually a typhoon
on the day the windmill collapsed. Petitioner merely stated that there was a “strong
wind.” But a strong wind in this case cannot be fortuitous — unforeseeable nor
unavoidable. On the contrary, a strong
wind should be present in places where windmills are constructed, otherwise the
windmills will not turn.
The appellate court correctly observed that “given the newly-constructed windmill
system, the same would not have collapsed had there been no inherent defect in it
which could only be attributable to the appellee.”
HELD:
- The appealed decision is MODIFIED.

- Respondent to PAY the balance (P15,000), and Tanguilig was ordered to reconstruct
subject defective windmill system.

Tanguilig v. CA, G.R. 266 SCRA 78

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanguilig v. CA, G.R. 266 SCRA 78

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Tanguilig v. CA, G.R. 266 SCRA 78

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanguilig v.

About this case:

- Petitioner agreed to the construction of the windmill is P60,000.00 with a one-year

Four (4) requisites must concur:

(b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;

- The appealed decision is MODIFIED.

You might also like