GIL VILLANUEVA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. FILOMENO GIRGED AND LUCIO S. LEGASPI, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal by plaintiff; Gil Villanueva from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Agusan, dismissing the complaint, insofar as defendant Lucio S.
Legaspi is concerned, for lack of cause of action, with costs against
plaintiff.

The complaint purports to set up three (3) causes of action, for the recovery
of the sums of P7,350.00, P2,500.00 and P6,000.00, respectively.

It is alleged therein that the first sum represents the amount of a
Philippine National Bank check, issued by defendant Girged in favor of the
plaintiff, on February 27, 1956, in exchange for the same amount, in cash,
delivered by the latter to the former; that upon presentation, the check was
dishonored by the bank, for “Girged had no deposits therein”; that in a letter
dated April 28, 1956, copy of which is attached to the complaint as Annex B,
defendant Lucio S. Legaspi had “expressly acknowledged and assumed the
obligations” of Girged, who was his “business partner”; and that, despite
repeated demands, said sum of P7,350.00 is still unpaid.

By way of second cause of action, plaintiff alleged in the complaint that in
February and April, 1956, defendants had hired his services as stevedore for the
loading of round logs for exportation to Japan, with a total volume of 2,500
cubic meters, at the rate of P1.00 per cubic meter, making a total of P2,500.00;
that the obligation to pay the same was, also, acknowledged and assumed by
Legaspi in said letter Annex B; and that said obligation”has not been paid
despite repeated demands.

By way of third cause of action, plaintiff claims P2,500.00 for moral damages
and P3,500.00 for attorney’s fees. The complaint contains, also, some
allegations in support of the prayer therein that a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued.

In due course, defendant Legaspi filed an answer, denying most of the
allegations of the complaint, except the execution of the letter Annex B, and
alleged, as “affirmative and special defenses”, that plaintiff has no cause of
action against him; that he is merely Girged’s attorney-in-fact; and that, in
said letter, Annex B, he (Legaspi) merely tried to help plaintiff in the
collection of his credit against Girged, upon completion of a given shipment of
logs to Japan by Girged, which shipment has not been completed.

The lower court dealt with this special defense as if it were a motion to
dismiss and, after due hearing, concluded that it was well taken. Hence, the
order of dismissal appealed from.

The only question before us is whether or not the allegations of the
complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action against Legaspi. This issue
hinges on the nature and effect of the aforementioned letter Annex B, from which
we quote:

“I wish to assure you that any amount that Mr. Girged owe you will be taken
care of in his 3rd shipment of logs to Japan.

The 2nd shipment was a losing proposition on account of i!ie fact that it was
an attached shipment of Poblete and Nasipit Lumber.

So please feel assure that I, myself, will be tha one to take care of his
account with you as noon as Mr. Girged has made his 3rd shipment.

I wish to know also by return mail how much really Mr. Girged is indebted to
you so that I may have the full amount of Mr. Girged’s obligation.

I thank you.

Very truly yours,

Philippine Experimenters’ Supply Co.
(Sgd.) Lucio S.
Legaspi”

As contended by Legaspi and sustained by the lower court, Legaspi did not
thereby assume the obligation of Girged. Legaspi merely assured the plaintiff
that any amount due to him by Girged would “be taken care of in his third
shipment of logs to Japan” and that he (Legaspi) would “be the one to take care”
of Girged’s account with plaintiff, “as soon as Mr. Girged has made his third
shipment.” Moreover, there is no allegation in the complaint to the effect that
this shipment has been made, so that, even if said letter Annex B entailed an
assumption of obligation, the condition imposed therefor had not been fulfilled
as yet, and, hence, said obligation is not due, insofar as Legaspi is concerned.
Although plaintiff claims that Girged and Legaspi are business partners—which is
denied by both—there is no allegation in the complaint to the effect that the
first two (2) causes of action have arisen from transactions with the
partnership. Indeed, the contrary is inferable from the fact that plaintiff’s
causes of action against Legaspi are based upon the alleged assumption of
obligation in consequence of Legaspi’s letter Annex B, thus indicating that
Legaspi was not deemed bound prior to said alleged assumption and that his
obligation, if any, did not spring, therefore, from his status as alleged
partner of Girged.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against plaintiff Gil Villanueva. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.