6. FISHER v.
ROBB and he would do everything possible so that the stockholders who had made
G.R. No. 46274 | 2 November 1939
DOCTRINE: A mere moral obligation arising wholly from ethical motives,
or a mere conscientious duty unconnected with any legal obligation, will not
furnish a consideration for an executory promise. Art. 1350
FACTS
1. Robb, while in a business trip in Shanghai to study the operation of a dog
racing course because Philippine Greyhound Club Inc. told him so, met
Fisher. Robb came to know that Fisher was the manager of a dog racing
course.
2. Fisher became interested in the Philippine Greyhound and asked Robb if
he could have a part therein as a stockholder, in which Robb answered in
the affirmative. Fisher then filed a subscription, and sent P3,000 to
Philippine Greyhound as payment for the first installment of his
subscription. Robb then returned to Manila.
3. When a call for the payment of the second subscription came, Robb sent
a radiogram to Fisher in Shanghai requesting him to send the second
installment of his subscription. Fisher, then, sent P2,000 directly to
Philippine Greyhound.
4. Due to the manipulations of those who controlled the Philippine
Greyhound during the absence of Robb in Manila, the enterprise failed.
5. Robb then undertook the organization of The Philippine Racing Club
(PRC) to save the investment of those who had subscribed to the Philippine
Greyhound by having the PRC acquire the remaining assets of the
Philippine Greyhound.
6. Robb wrote a letter to Fisher explaining the critical condition of the
Philippine Greyhound and outlining his plans to save the properties and
assets of Fisher.
7. Robb told Fisher that he felt morally responsible for the second
payments which had been made to carry out his plan, and that Mr. Hilscher
second payments may receive the amount paid by them from their personal
funds, not because they were bound to do so, but because they voluntarily
assumed the responsibility to make such payment as soon as they receive
from the Philippine Racing certain shares for their services as promoters of
said organization.
8. Fisher now requires Robb to return the entire amount sent by him to
Philippine Greyhound. Robb answered that it was not his duty under the law
to reimburse Fisher for any loss he suffered in connection with Philippine
Greyhound.
ISSUE
W/N a moral obligation is a sufficient consideration to a contract as to make
it demandable in law.
HELD
No. The SC ruled in favor of Robb.
The third essential requisite in a contract is the cause or consideration.
The contract sought to be judicially enforced by Fisher is onerous in
character, because it there is a deprivation from Robb of an amount of
money which impairs his property, which is a burden, and for it to be legally
valid it is necessary that it should have a consideration consisting in the
lending or promise of a thing or service by such party.
Robb is required to give a thing (payment of P2,000), but Fisher has not
given or promised anything to Robb which may compel him to make such
payment.
The promise which Robb has made to Fisher to return to him the P2,000
was prompted by a feeling of pity. The obligation which Robb had
contracted with Fisher is, therefore, purely moral and, as such, is not
demandable in law but only in conscience, over which human judges have
no jurisdiction.
See Doctrine.