NPC vs. JUDGE DAYRIT
G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983
This is a petition to set aside the Order of the respondent judge. In a Civil Case DANIEL E. ROXAS, doing business under the name and style of United Veterans Security Agency and Foreign Boats Watchmen, sued NPC and two of its officers in Iligan City, to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the former had terminated. After several incidents, the litigants entered into a Compromise Agreement on October 14, 1981, and they asked the Court to approve it.
On, May 14, 1982, NPC executed another contract for security services with Josette L. Roxas whose relationship to Daniel is not shown. NPC refused to implement the new contract for which reason Daniel filed a Motion for Execution. Acting on the Motion, the respondent judge issued writ of execution. The NPC assails the Order on the ground that it directs execution of a contract which had been novated . Upon the other hand, Roxas claims that said contract was executed precisely to implement the compromise agreement for which reason there was no novation.
ISSUE: WON there was novation.
HELD: The petition is denied for lack of merit with costs against the petitioner.
We sustain the private respondent. It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect.
Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.
In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement which supports the petitioner's contention. There is neither explicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and the "new" agreements.
G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983
This is a petition to set aside the Order of the respondent judge. In a Civil Case DANIEL E. ROXAS, doing business under the name and style of United Veterans Security Agency and Foreign Boats Watchmen, sued NPC and two of its officers in Iligan City, to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the former had terminated. After several incidents, the litigants entered into a Compromise Agreement on October 14, 1981, and they asked the Court to approve it.
On, May 14, 1982, NPC executed another contract for security services with Josette L. Roxas whose relationship to Daniel is not shown. NPC refused to implement the new contract for which reason Daniel filed a Motion for Execution. Acting on the Motion, the respondent judge issued writ of execution. The NPC assails the Order on the ground that it directs execution of a contract which had been novated . Upon the other hand, Roxas claims that said contract was executed precisely to implement the compromise agreement for which reason there was no novation.
ISSUE: WON there was novation.
HELD: The petition is denied for lack of merit with costs against the petitioner.
We sustain the private respondent. It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect.
Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.
In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement which supports the petitioner's contention. There is neither explicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and the "new" agreements.
Comments
Post a Comment