PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ERMITA MARKET & COLD STORES, INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P1,740 with interest thereon at
the rate of 10 per cent per annum from January 1, 1928, to date of payment;
likewise, to pay plaintiff P174 for attorneys’ fees and costs of collection; and
to pay P250.67 with legal interest from date of filing of complaint to date of
payment for work, labor, and services rendered and for materials used in the
installation of a refrigerating machine for the defendant, and pay the
costs.

It appears that on September 14, 1927, the Pacific Commercial Co., the
plaintiff herein, sold to the Ermita Market & Cold Stores, Inc., the
defendant herein, an automatic refrigerating machine of the following
description:

“Una maquina refrigeradora automatica York Style Y-26 capacidad Dos
toneladas de refrigeracion consistente en: Compresor de amoniaco York,
de Doble Cilindro, Condensador, Recibidor, Separador de aceite, Juego de
manometros, Valvulas, Valvula reguladora de agua, Control automatico, Aparato de
seguridad, Motor Electrico G-E de cinco caballos de fuerza 220
volts—Corriente alterna, de Una Fase, montadas todas en una base de
hierro, asi como tambien incluye una bomba centrifuga para circulacion de agua y
correas.”

The parties signed the usual printed sales-contract form of the plaintiff
company, the purchase price being P2,550, payable by instalments on dates and in
amounts stated in the sales contract. The delivery of the machine was made on
December 7, 1927, and by mutual agreement between the vendor and the vendee, the
former installed the machine which was completed on December 26, 1927. The
installation, including materials used, amounted to P250.67, to be paid by the
Ermita Market & Cold Stores, Inc., to the Pacific Commercial Company.
Complying with the terms of the sales contract, the defendant paid the plaintiff
the amount of P810 against the purchase price of the machine, leaving a balance
of P1,740.

A few days after the installation of the automatic refrigerating machine, the
Ermita Market & Cold Stores advised the Pacific Commercial Company that, the
machine was not serving the purpose for which it was sold to defendant and that
it was lacking ammonia receiver and oil separator. The plaintiff company in turn
advised the defendant that the machine installed was complete, having all the
accessories as stated in the contract. However, upon the insistence of the
defendant, the plaintiff, just to please the president of the defendant company,
delivered and installed on the machine an additional oil separator without
charge. The machine did not give the results expected from it, and the defendant
refused to pay the balance of its purchase price and the cost of the
installation of the machine. The Pacific Commercial Company thereupon brought
this action.

In its answer, the defendant generally and specifically denied the
allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint, and by way of special defense
alleged substantially that the machine delivered to the defendant by the
plaintiff was not the machine described in the contract of sale inasmuch as the
said machine was not automatic and as it was lacking ammonia receiver, oil
separator, and the implements necessary to make the said machine automatic.

By way of cross-complaint, the defendant further alleges that it bought the
machine in question from the plaintiff for the purpose of running the business
of cold storage; that the temperature in the refrigerating rooms did not reach,
and had never reached, the necessary temperature for the preservation of meat,
fish, vegetables, and fruits; that owing to the negligence of the plaintiff in
not repairing or putting in good working condition the said refrigerating
machine, the defendant had been forced to close its establishment and for which
reason the defendant claimed damages against the plaintiff as follows:

“P5,000 for expenses in advertising and propaganda;

“P15,000 as the
value of fish, pork, meat, vegetables and fruits alleged to have deteriorated in
the refrigerating rooms; .

“P30,000 for the loss of its clientele and
decrease in its sales;

“P20,000 for the loss of the whole business; and

“P3,600 for rentals of the premises, salaries of the manager, guard and
warehouseman, from May 10, 1928, up to October of the same year, at the rate of
P600 a month, because of the refusal of the plaintiff to withdraw the
refrigerating machine in question from the premises where it was installed. In
other words, the defendant asks for damages in the total sum of
P73,600.”

Replying to the defendant’s cross-complaint, the plaintiff denied generally
and specifically each and every allegation in the said cross-complaint and by
way of special defense, alleged that whatever defects or deficiency there might
have been in the temperature in the refrigerating rooms of defendant’s
establishment, or in the functioning of the machine, these were due to the
defects and imperfections of the coils which were supplied and installed by the
defendant itself, as well as to the incompetency and inefficiency of the
defendant’s personnel to operate the machine.

After trial, the court
below rendered the judgment above mentioned, and, as hereinbefore stated, the
defendant appealed to this court.

After a careful examination of the record, we have not the least doubt that
the plaintiff delivered the machine as described in the sales contract, and the
fact that the defendant could not use it satisfactorily in the three cold stores
divisions cannot be attributed to plaintiff’s fault; as far as we can see, the
machine was strictly in accordance with the written contract between the
parties, and the defendant can hardly honestly say that there was any deception
by the plaintiff; (See article 327, Code of Commerce; Palanca vs. Fred
Wilson & Co., 37 Phil., 506.)

But it is clear, that the defendant company did not fully understand the use
of the motor. It complains that the machine would not properly refrigerate the
refrigerating rooms, but it is evident that the machine could not operate
automatically when the defendant had three refrigerating rooms which it expected
to maintain at three different temperatures.

The defendant also complained that the machine was not equipped with a
thermostat and that the lack of it obstructed the work of the refrigerating. In
the first place, the thermostat was not included in the sales contract and in
the second place it would not have been of any service to defendant because it
could not possibly operate automatically at three different temperatures with
the defendant’s insufficient equipment.

The defendant’s complaint that the machine did not contain an oil separator
is not true; the oil separator is combined with the receiver and condenser in a
single combined piece in the machine.

The evidence in this case is clear to us, and we cannot find any errors
committed by the court below. It may be that the machine could have given
satisfaction to the defendant if the coils had been installed properly and the
machine had been operated by competent persons. Any deficiency in this regard
could not-be the plaintiffs fault; the coils were supplied and installed by
someone other than the plaintiff, and the machine was being operated by the
defendant itself.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed in its entirety, with costs
against appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez,
Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.