G.R. No. 1267. January 19, 1904

The appellant made a motion in the trial court for a new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion was not based upon
the ground that the findings of fact were contrary to the weight of
the evidence,and consequently under the provisions of section 497 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, our jurisdiction in this case is limited
to determining the questions of law raised in the bill of exceptions,
but without reviewing the evidence.

The court below in its decision says that “the Chinamen,
Ong-Congco, Chua-Checo, and Cua-Ohco, testified that the defendant
To-Jamco promised to pay them for the services they were to render,
and that they have assigned the amount of their claims against the
defendant to the plaintiff.” He also says that “the
plaintiff testified to the same effect, and it may be regarded as an
uncontroverted fact that the assignment was legally made.”

As a result of his construction of the evidence introduced by the
parties, the court below concludes that “the direct testimony of
the Chinamen who have testified in this case must be considered as
constituting more weighty evidence than the testimony of the
defendant.”

This is equivalent to the statement that the court considers the
above-named Chinamen’s testimony concerning the fact that the
defendant undertook to pay them for their services as worthy of
credence, and therefore in his opinion true; and that it is also true
that Ong-Congco, Chua-Checo, and Cua-Ohco have assigned to the
plaintiff their right to recover the amount due for such services
from the defendant.

The court below also considered it proven that the said Chinamen
and the plaintiff actually rendered the services upon which the
complaint is based, and that the sum of 110 pesos and 80 cents is
still owing for the services rendered by Ong-Congco; 116 pesos and 96
cents for Chua Checo’s services; 146 pesos and 85 cents for
Cua-Ohco’s services; and 123 pesos and 55 cents for the services
rendered by the plaintiff.

From these facts it is to be inferred that the defendant entered
into a contract of hire with the plaintiff, and the three other
Chinamen above named, by which he undertook to pay them the value of
their services; that the latter actually rendered the services
contracted for, and that the defendant is still indebted to them for
wages in the amounts above expressed.

This being so, the judgment of the court below is evidently in
conformity with the law. Contracts bind the contracting parties to
the performance of the agreement entered into. The obligations
arising therefrom have the force of law between the contracting
parties and must be executed in accordance with the tenor thereof.
(Arts.1258 and 1091 of the Civil Code.) Consequently the court below
in entering his judgment has not committed any of the errors assigned
in the bill of exceptions.

It is unnecessary to consider the legal effects of the note made
by the defendant at the bottom of the contract entered into between
the Philippine Lumber and Development Company and the Chinaman
To-Chaco, a copy of which appears in the judgment. Whatever might be
its legal effects, the fact that the defendant agreed to pay the
plaintiff and his companions for their services is in itself
sufficient to produce the obligation on his part to make such
payment, the services which were the object of the contract having
been rendered by the plaintiff and his companions. This is entirely
independent of the obligation which, on the other hand, he may have
incurred by reason of the undertaking expressed in the said note.
From that personal stipulation entered into with the said Chinamen
and the plaintiff and not from the note (which constitutes another
distinct juridical act and which has not even been mentioned as the
ground of the action brought in the complaint), arises the right
accruing to the plaintiff, personally and as assignee of the others,
to demand the payment of the money whose recovery is the purpose of
this action.

For the reasons stated we affirm the judgment of the court below,
with the costs of this instance against the appellant. Judgment will
be entered in conformity with this opinion twenty days from the date
of its filing, and the case remanded to the court below. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, and
McDonough, JJ., concur.
Johnson J., did not sit in
this case.
.