This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: st Maria Gay in case she did not wait until the
expiration of the option, or that they would waive all claims to the option and be agreeable to whatever action
she might take.
Interpreting the phrase to mean that the plaintiffs waived their option to buy, Maria Gay closed the sale of
the estate in favor of the defendant Sunyantong.
ISSUE: W/N defendants Sunyantong are liable for their actions (causing the option to buy to fall through)
Even supposing that this latter interpretation of the phrase in question was actual intention of Sing Bengco,
the action of the defendant Sunyantong in intervening in the negotiations in the manner in which he did does
not make him innocent of infidelity in view of the fact that he was an employee of the plaintiffs to whom he
owed loyalty and faithfulness.
Though it is conceded that when he closed the contract of sale with Maria Gay, the plaintiffs' option had
expired, the fact cannot be denied that he was the causes that the option had precipitously come to such
an end. His disloyalty to his employers was responsible for Maria Gay not accepting the terms proposed by
the plaintiffs, because of being certain of another less exigent buyer. Without such intervention on the part of
the defendant it is presumed, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, that the sale of the
estate in question would have been consummated between Maria Gay and the plaintiffs, perhaps with such
advantages to the plaintiffs, as they expected to obtain by prolonging negotiations.
Such an act of infidelity committed by a trusted employee calculated to redound to his own benefit and to
the detriment of his employers cannot pass without legal sanction. It is an illicit act committed with culpa
and, therefore, its agent is liable (art. 1089, Civil Code), for the damage caused (art. 1902, ibidem). Not
identical, but similar, to this infidelity is the abuse of the confidence sanctioned in our Penal Code as a
generic circumstances, nay as specific aggravating one, and even as an essential element of certain 16 crimes.
This reparation provided for in the Civil Code and applied to the case at bar seems to be limited to the
indemnification of damages, as we are not aware of any express provision in said Code which imposes upon
the person thus held liable, any obligation,...
View Full Document
- Fall '14