Bacolod Murcia v CA.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 17 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 17 pages.
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of AppealsG.R. Nos. 81100-01. February 7, 1990.*BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALONSO GATUSLAO, respondents.BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ALONSO GATUSLAO, AGRO-INDUS-TRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SILAY-SARAVIA (AIDSISA) AND BACOLOD-MURCIAAGRICULTURALCOOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION (BM-ACMA), respondents.Obligations and Contracts; Caso Fortuito, Requirements of; The closure of the railroad does not constitute force majeure that will exempt petitioner from liability for breach of its obligation.—It is the position of petitioner Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. (BMMC) that the closure of its railroad lines constitute force majeure, citing Article 1174 of the Civil Code, exempting a person from liability for events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable. This Court has consistently ruled that when an obligor is exempted from liability under the aforecited provision of the Civil Code for a breach of an obligation due to an act of God, the following elements 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 unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of _______________*SECOND DIVISION.25VOL. 182, FEBRUARY 7, 1990 25 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appealsthe injury to the creditor (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 182...1 of 172/25/2018, 10:08 AM
Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appealsthe injury to the creditor (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 [1985]; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 596 [1986]). Applying the criteria to the instant case, there can be no other conclusion than that the closure of the railroad tracks does not constitute force majeure. The terms of the milling contracts were clear and undoubtedly there was no reason for BMMC to expect otherwise. The closure of any portion of the railroad track, not necessarily in the hacienda Helvetia but in any of the properties whose owners decided not to renew their milling contracts with the Central upon their expiration, was forseeable and inevitable. Petitioner Central should have anticipated and should have provided for the eventuality before committing itself. Under the circumstances it has no one to blame but itself and cannot now claim exemption from liability.Same; Rescission of Contract; Rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, a substantial and fundamental breach is required.—Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. In fact, it is well

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 17 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
N/A
Tags
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture