Manila Railroad
98 Phil 181
Art. 1180, Setting of Period
Issue
W/N a company may be excused for payment of
salary diff of its retired employees when the
agreement is subject to condition that salary
differentials from date of exhaustion will be paid
when funds for the purpose are available, if the
company is losing its business?
Facts
Petitioners are 35 retired employees of defendant
company who sought to recover salary diff due to
them under MOA with defendant
Under the MOA, employed affected by the
standardized plan will receive standardized salaries
provided that any salary diff from date of exhaustion
will be paid when funds for the purpose are available
Held
Art. 1180. When the debtor binds himself to pay
when his means permit him to do so, the obligation
shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to
the provisions of Article 1197.
MOA does not stipulate that salary diff shall be
paid only from surplus profits
It is not appearing that defendant was bankcrupt
the obligation to pay said salary diff may be
considered as one with term whose duration has
been left to the will of the debtor, so that pursuant
to art. 1197, the duration of the term may be fixed
by courts
versus
Facts:
This case is about the legal consequences when a
buyer in a contract to sell on installment fails to
make the next payments that he promised.
On August 12, 2002 the Atienzas and respondent
Domingo P. Espidol entered into a contract called
Kasunduan sa Pagbibili ng Lupa na may Paunang-Bayad
(contract to sell land with a down payment) covering
the property. They agreed on a price, payable in
three installments.
When the Atienzas demanded payment of the
second installment of P1,750,000.00 in December
2002, however, respondent Espidol could not pay it.
Claiming that Espidol breached his obligation, on
February 21, 2003 the Atienzas filed a complaint for
the annulment of their agreement with damages
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)of Cabanatuan
City in a Civil Case.
Issue:
Whether or not the Atienzas were entitled to the
cancellation of the contract to sell they entered into
with respondent Espidol on the ground of the
latters failure to pay the second installment when it
fell due.
Held:
The Court declares the Kasunduan sa Pagbibili ng Lupa
na may Paunang-Bayad between petitioner Heirs of
Romero v. CA