LAW ON EVIDENCE | EL VARADERO DE MANILA VS. INSULAR LUMBER G.R. No. 21911, September 15, 1924

EL VARADERO DE MANILA VS. INSULAR LUMBER 

G.R. No. 21911, September 15, 1924



FACTS

El Varadero de Manila completed certain repairs on a lighter, which is the property of the Insular Lumber Company. The work was performed pursuant to no express agreement, but with the implicit understanding that the price would be as low as, or lower than, could be secured from any other company. The Insular Lumber Company being of the opinion that the bill as presented by El Varadero de Manila was grossly exorbitant, the matter was taken to the CFI. El Varadero de Manila was able to secure judgment against the Insular Lumber Company, in the amount of P5,310.70. Still dissatisfied at the amount, the plaintiff now appeals. Whether the rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations does not apply where there is no denial of liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be paid.


HELD. Yes. The general rule is that an offer of compromise is inadmissible. Where, however, the amount named in the offer to accept a certain sum in settlement appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, it is relevant. The rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations does not apply where there is no denial expressed or implied of liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be paid.


Here, there was no denial of liability and the only question discussed was the amount to be paid which the plaintiff insisted should not be more than P8,070.12. The tacit understanding between the parties was that the cost of the repairs should be approximately the same as what other companies would charge. The defendant admits that El Varadero de Navotas would have done the work for about P8,000. The Court fixed the sum definitely at P7,700.








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147