Indeed we feel that a a matter of moral justice we

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: entities may exists and no corporate business may be transacted. Such legal fiction may be disregarded only when an attempt is made to use it as a cloak to hide an unlawful or fraudulent purpose. No such thing has been alleged or proven in this case. It has not been alleged nor even intimated that Vazquez personally benefited by the contract of sale in question and that he is merely invoking the legal fiction to avoid personal liability. Neither is it contended that he entered into said contract for the corporation in bad faith and with intent to defraud the plaintiff. We find no legal and factual basis upon which to hold him liable on the contract either principally or subsidiarily. The trial court found him guilty of negligence in the performance of the contract and held him personally liable on that account. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that he "no solamente obro con negligencia, sino interveniendo culpa de su parte, por lo que de acuerdo con los arts. 1102, 1103 y 1902 del Codigo Civil, el debe ser responsable subsidiariamente del pago de la cantidad objeto de la demanda." We think both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in law in so holding. They have manifestly failed to distinguish a contractual from an extracontractual obligation, or an obligation arising from contract from an obligation arising from culpa aquiliana. The fault and negligence referred to in articles 1101- 1104 of the Civil Code are those incidental to the fulfillment or nonfullfillment of a contractual obligation; while the fault or negligence referred to in article 1902 is the culpa aquiliana of the civil law, homologous but not identical to tort of the common law, which gives rise to an obligation independently of any contract. (Cf. Manila R.R. Co. vs. Cia. Trasatlantica, 38 Phil., 875, 887- 890; Cangco vs. Manila R.R. Co., 38 Phil. 768.) The fact that the corporation, acting thru Vazquez as its manager, was guilty of negligence in the fulfillment of the contract, did not make Vazquez principally or even subsidiarily liable for such negligence. Since it was the corporation's contract, its nonfulfillment, whether due to negligence or fault or to any other cause, made the corporation and not its agent liable. On the other hand if independently of the contract Vazquez by his fault or negligence cause damaged to the plaintiff, he would be liable to the latter under article 1902 of the Civil Code. But then the plaintiff's cause of action should be based on culpa aquiliana and not on the contract alleged in his complaint herein; and Vazquez' liability would be principal and not merely subsidiary, as the Court of Appeals has erroneously held. No such cause of action was al...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online