509 Phil. 753
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, executed this 28th day of February, 1995, by and between:Diggings thereafter commenced. After some time, petitioner was informed by the members of the respondent that the digging traversed and penetrated a portion of the land belonging to the latter. The foundation of the chapel was affected as a tunnel was dug directly under it to the damage and prejudice of the respondent.
JOHN Y. CHAN, of legal age, single, and a resident of Aringay, La Union, now and hereinafter called the FIRST PARTY;
GEN. ELY E. YORO, Jr., of legal age, married, and a resident of Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, hereinafter referred to as the SECOND PARTY:WITNESSETH that:
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY is the owner of a parcel of land located at Sta. Rita, Aringay, La Union.
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY, desires to dig a septic tank for its perusal in the property bordering Iglesia ni Cristo.
WHEREAS, the SECOND PARTY is willing to contract the intended digging of septic tank for the first party.
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY and SECOND PARTY has (sic) agreed verbally as to the compensation of the said digging of septic tank.
WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and covenants hereinbelow set forth, the FIRST PARTY hereby AGREES and ALLOWS the SECOND PARTY to undertake the digging of the parcel of land for the exclusive purpose of having a septic tank.
TERMS AND COVENANTS
1. The SECOND PARTY shall contract the said digging;
2. The FIRST PARTY shall have complete control over the number of personnel who will be entering the property for said contract;
3. The digging shall be allowed for a period of three (3) weeks only, commencing on March 28, 1995, unless extended by agreement of the parties;
4. Any damage within or outside the property of the FIRST PARTY incurred during the digging shall be borne by the SECOND PARTY;
5. In the event that valuable objects are found on the property, the same shall be divided among the parties as follows:
FIRST PARTY - 60%
SECOND PARTY - 40%
6. In the event that valuable objects are found outside the property line during the said digging, the same shall be divided among the parties as follows:FIRST PARTY - 35% 7. In case government or military interference or outside intervention is imminent, the FIRST PARTY hereby reserves the option to stop the digging at any stage thereof.
SECOND PARTY - 65%
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set our hands on the day and year first above-written at Aringay, La Union.[4]
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiff IGLESIA NI CRISTO and against defendants JOHN KAMBIAK CHAN and DIOSCORO "ELY" YORO, JR. who are respectively solidarily liable to PLAINTIFF on a 35%-65% basis, with JOHN CHAN taking the 35% tab, Ordering the two (2) aforesaid DEFENDANTS to pay PLAINTIFF the following amounts:Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal[14] dated 18 August 1999. Yoro filed his own Notice of Appeal[15] dated 20 August 1999.
1. SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (P633,595.50); representing ACTUAL DAMAGES;
2. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) representing MORAL DAMAGES;
3. TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00) as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
4. FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as plaintiff's attorney's fees; and
5. TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as litigation expenses.
Defendant TEOFILO OLLER is absolved of any civil liability.
Any counterclaim filed against PLAINTIFF IGLESIA NI CRISTO is dismissed.[13]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court GRANTS the motion of plaintiff Iglesia ni Cristo for the issuance of a Writ of Execution as against Dioscoro "Ely" Yoro, Jr. only.[18]The petitioner's appeal to the Court of Appeals, on the other hand, was given due course.[19] On 25 September 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision denying the appeal. It affirmed the trial court but with modifications. The decretal portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision in Civil Case No. A-1646 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:Undeterred, petitioner instituted the instant case before this Court. On 15 December 2004, the instant petition was given due course.[21]
(a) The award of moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 is hereby deleted.
(b) The award of exemplary damages is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.
(c) The award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses is hereby reduced to P30,000.00.[20]
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BRANCH 31, AGOO, LA UNION) PARTICULARLY IN SAYING THAT THE BASIS OF THE SOLIDARY OBLIGATION OF PETITIONER AND YORO VIS-À-VIS PLAINTIFF IS BASED NOT ON THE MOA BUT ON TORTII
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THE MOA WHICH SHOULD EXONERATE THE PETITIONER FROM ALL LIABILITIES TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTIII
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AS CROSS-CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AGAINST YORO.[22]
WHETHER OR NOT THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND YORO HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE LATTER SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES TO THE RESPONDENT.
4. Any damage within or outside the property of the FIRST PARTY incurred during the digging shall be borne by the SECOND PARTY.In answer to this, the respondent asserts that the MOA should not absolve petitioner from any liability. This written contract, according to the respondent, clearly shows that the intention of the parties therein was to search for hidden treasure. The alleged digging for a septic tank was just a cover-up of their real intention.[24] The aim of the petitioner and Yoro to intrude and surreptitiously hunt for hidden treasure in the respondent's premises should make both parties liable.[25]
The basis of their solidarity is not the Memorandum of Agreement but the fact that they have become joint tortfeasors. There is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.[27]We find no compelling reason to disturb this particular conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals. The issue, therefore, must be ruled in the negative.
ART. 2176. - Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.Based on this provision of law, the requisites of quasi-delict are the following:
(a) there must be an act or omission;All the requisites are attendant in the instant case. The tortious act was the excavation which caused damage to the respondent because it was done surreptitiously within its premises and it may have affected the foundation of the chapel. The excavation on respondent's premises was caused by fault. Finally, there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the petitioner and Yoro on the one hand, and the respondent on the other.
(b) such act or omission causes damage to another;
(c) such act or commission is caused by fault or negligence; and
(d) there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
While it is settled that a party who did not appeal from the decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from, nevertheless, when the rights and liability of the defendants are so interwoven and dependent as to be inseparable, in which case, the modification of the appealed judgment in favor of appellant operates as a modification to Gen. Yoro who did not appeal. In this case, the liabilities of Gen. Yoro and appellant being solidary, the above exception applies.[34]WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 25 September 2003 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the award of exemplary damages, which is hereby increased to P100,000.00. Costs against petitioner.