ASG Law

Category: Contracts

  • Rescinding a Contract to Sell in the Philippines: When is a Notarial Act Required?

    Understanding Contract Rescission: Notarial Act Not Always Necessary in Philippine Real Estate

    TLDR: In the Philippines, rescinding a contract to sell real property due to buyer default doesn’t always require a formal notarial act. This Supreme Court case clarifies that if the contract itself outlines the rescission process, and the property isn’t a residential installment sale covered by specific laws, a simple written notice might suffice. This highlights the importance of carefully reviewing contract terms and understanding applicable laws in real estate transactions.

    G.R. No. 107992, October 08, 1997: Odyssey Park, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Union Bank of the Philippines

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a business excitedly purchasing property for expansion, only to face legal hurdles when payment delays lead to contract cancellation. This scenario is not uncommon in the Philippines, where real estate transactions are governed by specific laws and contractual agreements. The case of Odyssey Park, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Union Bank delves into the crucial question of how a contract to sell real property can be validly rescinded when a buyer fails to meet payment obligations. Specifically, it addresses whether a formal notarial act is always necessary to effectuate such rescission, or if a simpler method, like a written notice as stipulated in the contract, can be legally sufficient. This distinction is vital for both buyers and sellers in real estate deals, impacting their rights and obligations when agreements falter.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS AND REAL ESTATE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

    In the Philippines, the power to rescind or cancel contractual obligations is a fundamental aspect of contract law, primarily governed by Article 1191 of the Civil Code. This article states, “The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.” This principle is especially relevant in contracts to sell real property, where the seller’s obligation to transfer title is contingent upon the buyer’s payment of the purchase price.

    However, the process of rescission isn’t always straightforward, particularly in real estate. Article 1592 of the Civil Code introduces a layer of formality, especially in contracts involving immovable property. It stipulates, “In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act.” This provision suggests a need for either judicial demand or a notarial act for valid rescission in certain real estate sales.

    Adding another dimension is Republic Act No. 6552, also known as the Maceda Law or the “Realty Installment Buyer Act.” This law protects buyers of real estate on installment payments, outlining specific procedures for cancellation, including grace periods and refund entitlements. However, the Maceda Law has limitations; it explicitly excludes certain types of properties like industrial lots, commercial buildings, and sales to tenants under agrarian reform laws. Understanding which law applies – the general provisions of the Civil Code or the specific rules of the Maceda Law – is crucial in determining the proper rescission procedure.

    A key distinction also exists between a contract of sale and a contract to sell. In a contract of sale, ownership is transferred upon delivery of the property. In contrast, a contract to sell is an agreement where the seller retains ownership until the buyer has fully paid the purchase price. Failure to pay in a contract to sell is not technically a breach of contract, but rather a failure of a condition that prevents the seller’s obligation to transfer title from arising. This distinction impacts how rescission is viewed and executed legally.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: ODYSSEY PARK VS. UNION BANK

    The Odyssey Park case revolves around a contract to sell a property in Baguio City, including the Europa Clubhouse, between Odyssey Park, Inc. (petitioner) and Bancom Development Corporation (later succeeded by Union Bank, respondent). The agreed purchase price was P3.5 million, payable in installments. Odyssey Park made an initial down payment and was supposed to make subsequent payments according to a schedule. However, Odyssey Park encountered issues when a third party, Europa Condominium Villas, Inc., questioned Bancom’s right to sell the property, claiming it was part of condominium common areas.

    This led Odyssey Park to suspend payments, citing the ongoing dispute. Despite Bancom (and later Union Bank) clarifying that the property was separate from the condominium project, Odyssey Park continued to withhold payments. Union Bank, having acquired Bancom’s rights, eventually sent a demand letter for the overdue amount. When no payment was made, Union Bank formally rescinded the contract through a letter dated January 6, 1984, giving Odyssey Park 30 days to vacate as per their contract.

    When Odyssey Park failed to vacate, Union Bank filed an illegal detainer case. In response, Odyssey Park filed a separate case seeking to nullify the rescission, arguing it was invalid because it wasn’t done through a notarial act as they believed was required by law, specifically citing Republic Act No. 6552 and Article 1592 of the Civil Code.

    The case proceeded through the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in favor of Union Bank, upholding the validity of the rescission. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Odyssey Park then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating their argument about the necessity of a notarial act for valid rescission.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, sided with Union Bank and upheld the rescission. The Court highlighted several key points. First, it noted the factual findings of the lower courts that Odyssey Park had indeed defaulted on its payment obligations. Second, it addressed Odyssey Park’s argument about the need for a notarial act. The Supreme Court clarified that Republic Act No. 6552 (Maceda Law) was inapplicable because the property in question was deemed a commercial building, not a residential property covered by that law. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ finding: “The property subject of the contract to sell is not a residential condominium apartment. Even on the basis of the letter of Mr. Vicente A. Araneta, Exhibit E, the building is merely part of common areas and amenities under the Condominium concept of selling to the public’. The property subject of the contract to sell is more of a commercial building.”

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court distinguished Article 1592 of the Civil Code, stating it applies to absolute sales, not contracts to sell. Crucially, the Court emphasized the contract itself. Section 5 of the contract to sell explicitly stated that Bancom (and by extension, Union Bank) could rescind the contract by serving a written notice of cancellation 30 days in advance if Odyssey Park failed to pay. The Supreme Court stated: “It is a familiar doctrine in the law on contracts that the parties are bound by the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions they have agreed to, the only limitation being that these stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy.”

    Since the contractual provision for rescission via written notice was not against the law, and Odyssey Park had indeed defaulted, the Supreme Court ruled that Union Bank validly rescinded the contract by sending a written notice. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, effectively ending Odyssey Park’s claim and solidifying Union Bank’s right to the property.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

    This case provides crucial practical lessons for anyone involved in real estate transactions in the Philippines, particularly in contracts to sell:

    • Contractual Stipulations Matter Most: The case underscores the paramount importance of the contract itself. Parties are bound by the terms they agree to, provided these terms are legal and not against public policy. Always carefully read and understand every clause, especially those related to payment, default, and rescission.
    • Know the Type of Property and Applicable Laws: The Maceda Law offers specific protections to installment buyers of residential properties. However, it doesn’t cover all real estate. Commercial properties, industrial lots, and other categories may fall under different legal regimes. Understanding the nature of the property and which laws apply is essential to determine rescission requirements.
    • Distinguish Between Contract to Sell and Contract of Sale: The legal consequences of default and rescission differ between these two types of contracts. In a contract to sell, full payment is a condition precedent for the transfer of ownership. Default in payment in a contract to sell can lead to rescission based on contractual terms, as highlighted in this case.
    • Written Notice Can Be Sufficient: While a notarial act adds formality and legal weight, this case clarifies that it’s not always mandatory for rescinding a contract to sell. If the contract explicitly allows for rescission via written notice upon default, and no specific statute mandates a notarial act (like in certain residential installment sales under Maceda Law), then written notice can be legally sufficient.
    • Prompt Action and Communication are Key: Odyssey Park’s decision to withhold payments based on a third-party claim without proper legal basis ultimately led to their contract being rescinded. Buyers facing legitimate concerns should communicate promptly with the seller and seek legal advice instead of unilaterally suspending payments, which can be construed as default. Sellers, on the other hand, must ensure they follow the rescission procedures outlined in the contract and provide proper notice to the buyer.

    Key Lessons:

    • Read Your Contract: Understand all terms, especially regarding payment and rescission.
    • Know the Law: Determine which laws apply to your specific real estate transaction (Civil Code, Maceda Law, etc.).
    • Communicate: Address concerns and payment issues with the other party promptly and in writing.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer to understand your rights and obligations before taking action, especially when facing potential default or rescission.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is a contract to sell in Philippine law?

    A: A contract to sell is an agreement where the seller promises to transfer ownership of property to the buyer once the buyer has fully paid the purchase price. The seller retains ownership until full payment is made.

    Q2: What does it mean to rescind a contract?

    A: To rescind a contract means to cancel or revoke it, effectively terminating the agreement and restoring the parties to their positions before the contract was made.

    Q3: Is a notarial act always required to rescind a contract to sell real estate in the Philippines?

    A: No, not always. As illustrated in the Odyssey Park case, if the contract itself specifies the procedure for rescission (like written notice) and no specific law mandates a notarial act for that type of property, then a notarial act may not be necessary. However, it’s always best to consult with a lawyer to ensure compliance with all legal requirements.

    Q4: What is the Maceda Law (RA 6552) and when does it apply?

    A: The Maceda Law protects buyers of real estate on installment payments. It primarily applies to residential properties, including residential condominium apartments, but excludes commercial and industrial properties. It provides grace periods and refund provisions for buyers who default after making certain payments.

    Q5: What happens to payments already made if a contract to sell is rescinded due to buyer default?

    A: It depends on the contract and applicable laws. In the Odyssey Park case, the contract stipulated that payments made would be forfeited as rentals and penalty. The Maceda Law, in contrast, provides for certain refunds for residential installment buyers after a certain number of payments.

    Q6: What should a buyer do if they are facing difficulty making payments in a contract to sell?

    A: Communicate with the seller immediately. Explore options like renegotiating payment terms or seeking a grace period. Ignoring the issue or unilaterally stopping payments can lead to contract rescission. It’s also crucial to seek legal advice to understand your rights and explore available remedies.

    Q7: Can a seller automatically rescind a contract to sell if the buyer defaults?

    A: Not necessarily automatically. The process depends on the contract terms and applicable laws. Usually, the seller needs to provide notice to the buyer and follow the rescission procedure outlined in the contract or by law. The Odyssey Park case shows that following the contract’s notice provision can be sufficient in certain situations.

    Q8: Is it better to have a judicial rescission or an extrajudicial rescission?

    A: Extrajudicial rescission (rescission outside of court) is generally faster and less expensive if validly executed according to the contract and law. However, if there is a dispute about the validity of the rescission, judicial rescission might be necessary to obtain a court declaration. Consulting with a lawyer is essential to determine the best course of action.

    ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Contract Law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Enforcing Compromise Agreements: Navigating Disputes and Appeals in the Philippines

    Compromise Agreements: Finality vs. Appealability of Subsequent Orders

    G.R. No. 102713, October 09, 1996

    Imagine two parties locked in a bitter legal battle. They finally reach a compromise, a signed agreement meant to end the dispute. But what happens when disagreements arise later about the specifics of that agreement? Can those later disagreements be appealed, or are they automatically considered part of the original, unappealable compromise? This case, Edward Litton v. Court of Appeals and Enrique Syquia, clarifies the crucial distinction between the finality of a compromise agreement itself and the appealability of subsequent orders interpreting or supplementing that agreement.

    Understanding Compromise Agreements

    A compromise agreement is a contract where parties, to avoid litigation, make mutual concessions to resolve their dispute. It’s a way to settle a case out of court, providing a quicker and often less expensive resolution. Once approved by a court, a compromise agreement becomes a judgment, and judgments based on compromise agreements are generally immediately executory and not appealable. This is because the parties have essentially waived their right to appeal by agreeing to the terms of the compromise.

    However, the principle of unappealability applies strictly to the compromise agreement itself. Any subsequent orders that go beyond the original agreement, addressing new issues or interpreting ambiguous clauses, may be subject to appeal. This is especially true if those subsequent orders involve factual disputes that require further adjudication. Article 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise as “a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.”

    For example, suppose two neighbors agree to settle a property line dispute with a compromise agreement stating that one neighbor will pay the other P50,000 for the contested land. If a later dispute arises over whether the payment was actually made, or whether the receiving neighbor should also pay capital gains tax on the money received, court orders resolving these new issues are appealable, even though the original compromise agreement was not.

    The Litton vs. Syquia Case: A Detailed Look

    The case began with a dispute between Edward Litton and Enrique Syquia regarding a leased building. They initially reached a compromise agreement, approved by the court, which stipulated the terms of Syquia’s stay in the building, including rental payments and the conditions for vacating the premises. Litton later filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the agreement, followed by a supplemental motion seeking additional payments for rent, utilities, and removed properties.

    The trial court granted Litton’s supplemental motion, ordering Syquia to pay various sums. Syquia then attempted to appeal this order, but the trial court denied his notice of appeal, arguing that the original compromise agreement was unappealable. This led Syquia to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor, allowing the appeal.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that the orders in question went beyond the scope of the original compromise agreement. The Court highlighted several key points:

    • The supplemental motion dealt with matters not explicitly covered in the compromise agreement, such as rental payments for a period beyond the agreed-upon term, utility bills, and the classification of certain properties as movable or immovable.
    • These new issues raised questions of fact that required further adjudication, making them subject to appeal.

    The Court quoted the Court of Appeals:

    “Indeed, these orders are not mere orders of execution but judgments on the merits of certain questions arising after the original decision. They concern matters which were not dealt with in the Compromise Agreement and, therefore, were not covered by the judgment sought to be ostensibly executed.”

    The Court also emphasized that the principle of reciprocal concessions is the heart of any compromise agreement. When a subsequent order imposes additional obligations not contemplated in the original agreement, it effectively modifies the compromise, requiring the consent of both parties. Without such consent, the order becomes appealable.

    Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for You?

    This case underscores the importance of clearly and comprehensively drafting compromise agreements. Parties should anticipate potential future disputes and include specific provisions to address them. The ruling in Litton v. Court of Appeals provides valuable guidance for businesses, property owners, and individuals entering into compromise agreements:

    • Be Specific: Ensure all terms and conditions are clearly defined in the agreement to avoid future ambiguities.
    • Address Contingencies: Anticipate potential future disputes and include provisions to address them.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an attorney to ensure the agreement is comprehensive and enforceable.

    Key Lessons

    • A judgment based on a compromise agreement is generally immediately executory and not appealable.
    • Subsequent orders that go beyond the scope of the original agreement may be subject to appeal, especially if they involve new factual disputes.
    • Clear and comprehensive drafting of compromise agreements is crucial to avoid future disputes.

    For instance, imagine a business settles a contract dispute with a supplier through a compromise agreement. If a later dispute arises about the quality of goods delivered after the agreement, a court order resolving this new issue is appealable, even though the original compromise agreement was not.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a compromise agreement?

    A: A compromise agreement is a contract where parties make mutual concessions to resolve a dispute and avoid litigation.

    Q: Are all court orders related to a compromise agreement unappealable?

    A: No. Only the original judgment approving the compromise agreement is generally unappealable. Subsequent orders that address new issues or interpret ambiguous clauses may be subject to appeal.

    Q: What happens if a party violates a compromise agreement?

    A: The other party can seek a writ of execution to enforce the agreement. However, if the violation involves a new factual dispute not covered by the original agreement, the court’s order resolving that dispute may be appealable.

    Q: How can I ensure my compromise agreement is enforceable?

    A: Ensure the agreement is clear, comprehensive, and addresses all potential future disputes. It’s also advisable to seek legal advice to ensure the agreement is properly drafted and enforceable.

    Q: What should I do if I disagree with a court order interpreting my compromise agreement?

    A: Consult with an attorney to determine whether the order is appealable. The key is whether the order addresses new issues or factual disputes not covered by the original agreement.

    ASG Law specializes in contract law and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Seller’s Liability for Defective Goods: Why Quality Control is Your Business, Even with Third-Party Delivery

    n

    Ensuring Quality from Source to Site: Why Sellers Bear the Brunt of Defective Deliveries

    n

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case underscores that sellers are ultimately responsible for the quality of goods delivered to buyers, even when using independent carriers. Businesses must implement robust quality control measures throughout their supply chain to avoid liability for damages caused by defective products, regardless of who handles the delivery.

    nn

    MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., AND CALTEX (PHILS.), INC., VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 103052, May 23, 1997

    nn

    n

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a construction project grinding to a halt, not due to material shortages, but because the cement factory’s machinery suddenly malfunctions. Or picture a manufacturer facing massive losses because a crucial raw material turns out to be contaminated, damaging their equipment and halting production. These scenarios, while seemingly disparate, share a common thread: the devastating impact of defective goods in commercial transactions. The Philippine Supreme Court case of Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. vs. Continental Cement Corporation vividly illustrates this principle, firmly establishing that sellers cannot evade liability for poor product quality, even when delivery is outsourced to a third-party carrier. This case serves as a crucial reminder for businesses: ensuring product quality is not just good practice, it’s a legal imperative that extends across the entire supply chain.

    n

    In this case, Continental Cement Corporation (CCC), a cement producer, suffered significant damages when bunker fuel oil (BFO) supplied by Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. (MOPI) turned out to be contaminated with water. The central legal question was whether MOPI could be held liable for these damages, especially since they contracted a separate hauling company, Century Freight Services (CFS), for delivery. Did MOPI’s responsibility end when the fuel left their facility, or did it extend to ensuring the quality of the fuel upon arrival at CCC’s plant?

    n

    nn

    n

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Implied Warranties in Sales Contracts

    n

    Philippine law, particularly the Civil Code, provides a robust framework to protect buyers in sales transactions through the concept of implied warranties. These warranties are not explicitly stated in a contract but are presumed by law to exist. Article 1562 of the Civil Code is particularly relevant, outlining the key implied warranties in a contract of sale:

    n

    “Art. 1562. In a contract of sale, unless contrary intention appears, there is an implied warranty on the part of the seller that he has a right to sell the thing at the time when ownership is to pass, and that the buyer shall from that time have and enjoy the legal and peaceful possession of the thing.”

    n

    While Article 1562 focuses on the right to sell and peaceful possession, related provisions and jurisprudence expand the scope of implied warranties to include the quality and fitness of goods. Specifically, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are crucial in commercial sales. Merchantability implies that goods are of fair average quality and reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Fitness for a particular purpose arises when the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required and relies on the seller’s skill or judgment.

    n

    In essence, these implied warranties ensure that when a buyer purchases goods, they are not just buying the physical items but also the reasonable expectation that those goods will be of acceptable quality and perform as intended for their normal or specified use. Breaching these warranties opens the seller to liability for damages incurred by the buyer as a result of the defective goods. The Mobil Oil case hinges on these implied warranties, particularly the expectation that the bunker fuel oil delivered would be of a quality suitable for industrial use, free from contaminants like excessive water.

    n

    nn

    n

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Contaminated Fuel and Cement Plant Catastrophe

    n

    The story unfolds with Continental Cement Corporation (CCC) and Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. (MOPI) entering into a supply agreement in May 1982. MOPI was to provide CCC with bunker fuel oil (BFO) for its cement production. MOPI even extended a substantial credit line to CCC, initially fostering a seemingly smooth business relationship. To handle deliveries, MOPI engaged Century Freight Services (CFS) through a hauling contract.

    n

    Between July and October 1982, MOPI made numerous BFO deliveries to CCC’s Norzagaray plant. However, on October 8, 1982, a routine delivery revealed a shocking anomaly: instead of BFO, the delivery truck contained pure water! CCC immediately notified MOPI and suspended payments, suspecting previous deliveries might also be compromised.

    n

    To ascertain the extent of the contamination, representatives from both MOPI and CCC conducted a joint inspection on October 22, 1982. This

  • Quantum Meruit: When Can a Contractor Recover Payment Without a Formal Contract?

    Understanding Quantum Meruit: Getting Paid for Work Done Without a Written Contract

    F. F. MAÑACOP CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 122196, January 15, 1997

    Imagine a scenario where you hire a contractor to build a fence around your property. You verbally agree on the price, and the contractor starts the work. However, before the project is completed, you stop the construction, leaving the contractor with unpaid expenses. Can the contractor recover payment for the work already done? This is where the principle of quantum meruit comes into play.

    This case, F. F. Mañacop Construction Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and the Manila International Airport Authority, explores the application of quantum meruit in government contracts. The central legal question is whether a contractor can be compensated for work performed on a government project, even without a fully executed written contract, and if so, how the amount due should be determined.

    The Legal Basis of Quantum Meruit

    Quantum meruit, Latin for “as much as he deserves,” is an equitable doctrine that allows a party to recover reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed, even in the absence of an express contract. It prevents unjust enrichment, ensuring that someone who benefits from another’s labor or materials pays a fair price for those benefits.

    The principle is rooted in quasi-contracts, which are obligations imposed by law based on fairness and equity, rather than on a mutual agreement. Article 2142 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.”

    For instance, if you mistakenly deliver groceries to your neighbor’s house, and they consume them knowing they weren’t intended for them, they have an obligation to pay you for the groceries under the principle of quasi-contract and, potentially, quantum meruit if the value of goods consumed is in question.

    Several conditions must be met for quantum meruit to apply:

    • The services were rendered or work was performed in good faith.
    • There was an expectation of payment for the services or work.
    • The other party knowingly accepted the benefits of the services or work.
    • It would be unjust for the other party to retain the benefits without paying.

    The Manila Airport Fence Case: A Detailed Look

    In this case, F.F. Mañacop Construction Co., Inc. (Mañacop) began constructing a perimeter fence for the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) based on an initialed Notice to Proceed, even before the general manager formally signed it. The construction was urgently needed to prevent squatters from entering the area.

    Here’s how the events unfolded:

    • September 1985: Mañacop starts building the fence based on an initialed Notice to Proceed for P307,440.00.
    • Post-February 1986 Revolution: The new MIAA general manager halts the construction when it is 95% complete, worth P282,068.00.
    • Repeated Demands: Mañacop repeatedly demands payment, but MIAA ignores them for two years.
    • Lawsuit Filed: Mañacop sues MIAA to recover payment for the completed work.

    The trial court ruled in favor of Mañacop, ordering MIAA to pay P238,501.48 based on quantum meruit, along with attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, directing the trial court to refer the computation of the amount due to the Commission on Audit (COA).

    The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s ruling. The Court emphasized that the issue of referring the matter to the COA was raised for the first time on appeal and should not have been considered. More importantly, the Court affirmed the applicability of quantum meruit in this situation, and that the lower court had already made a factual finding on the amount reasonably due to the petitioner and scrutinized the evidence.

    Here are some key quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision:

    “Well-recognized jurisprudence precludes raising an issue only for the first time on appeal, as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice to allow private respondent to raise a question not ventilated before the court a quo.”

    “Quantum meruit allows recovery of the reasonable value regardless of any agreement as to value. It entitles the party to ‘as much as he reasonably deserves,’ as distinguished from quantum valebant or to ‘as much as what is reasonably worth.’”

    Practical Implications of the Ruling

    This case reinforces the principle that contractors can recover payment for work done, even without a fully executed contract, under the doctrine of quantum meruit. It also clarifies that the courts, not just the COA, can determine the specific amount due based on equitable principles. This ruling is particularly relevant for construction projects where work begins before all formalities are completed.

    For businesses and individuals entering into contracts, the key lessons are:

    • Document Everything: Always strive for a written contract that clearly outlines the scope of work, payment terms, and responsibilities of each party.
    • Act in Good Faith: Ensure that all actions are taken in good faith and with the intention of fulfilling obligations.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer before starting any work without a formal contract, especially on government projects.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is quantum meruit?

    A: Quantum meruit is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed, even in the absence of an express contract. It is based on the principle of preventing unjust enrichment.

    Q: When does quantum meruit apply?

    A: It applies when services are rendered in good faith, there is an expectation of payment, the other party knowingly accepts the benefits, and it would be unjust for them to retain the benefits without paying.

    Q: Can quantum meruit be used in government contracts?

    A: Yes, but certain conditions must be met, such as the absence of fraud, a specific appropriation for the project, and substantial compliance with the obligation.

    Q: Who determines the amount due under quantum meruit?

    A: The courts can determine the amount due based on the reasonable value of the services or work performed. The COA may also be involved, but the courts have the final say.

    Q: What is the importance of having a written contract?

    A: A written contract provides clarity and certainty regarding the terms of the agreement, minimizing disputes and ensuring that both parties are protected.

    Q: What should I do if I start work based on an initialed document but no formal contract?

    A: Immediately seek to formalize the contract. Document all work performed and communications with the other party. Consult with a lawyer to understand your rights and options.

    Q: What if the government stops a project midway through?

    A: You may be able to recover payment for the work completed under quantum meruit, provided you acted in good faith and the government benefited from your work.

    ASG Law specializes in construction law and government contracts. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Clarity is Key: How Philippine Courts Interpret Lease Agreements and Advance Deposits

    The Importance of Clear Contract Language: Advance Deposits in Lease Agreements

    TLDR; This Supreme Court case emphasizes the crucial role of clear and unambiguous language in contracts, especially concerning financial terms like advance deposits in lease agreements. It highlights that written evidence, like receipts, holds more weight than verbal claims and underscores the limitations of extrajudicial contract rescission when terms are disputed.

    G.R. No. 107606, June 20, 1996

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine renting a space for your dream business, only to face eviction due to a misunderstanding about your deposit. This scenario, while stressful, is a common pitfall in lease agreements. In the Philippines, disputes between lessors and lessees often arise from unclear contract terms, particularly concerning payments and obligations. The Supreme Court case of Mercedes N. Abella v. Court of Appeals provides valuable insights into how Philippine courts interpret lease agreements, especially the significance of clearly defining the purpose of an ‘advance deposit’. This case serves as a crucial reminder for both landlords and tenants to ensure their agreements are crystal clear to avoid costly legal battles and business disruptions.

    At the heart of this case was a disagreement over a P40,000 payment made by the lessee, Conrado Colarina, to the lessor, Mercedes Abella. Was it ‘goodwill money’ as Abella claimed, or an ‘advance deposit’ for rentals as stated in the receipt? This simple question determined whether Colarina had violated the lease agreement, justifying Abella’s actions of taking back the property.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Interpreting Contracts Under Philippine Law

    Philippine contract law is primarily governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines. A cornerstone principle in contract interpretation is found in Article 1370, which states, “If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.” This principle, known as the literal interpretation rule, dictates that when a contract’s language is unambiguous, courts must adhere to the plain meaning of the words used.

    This principle is not absolute. Article 1371 to 1379 of the Civil Code provide rules for interpreting contracts when the terms are ambiguous or unclear. However, the Supreme Court consistently emphasizes that these rules only come into play when ambiguity exists. If the contract is clear on its face, as the Court reiterated in Syquia v. Court of Appeals and Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, the literal meaning prevails.

    In lease agreements, specific provisions of the Civil Code also come into play. For instance, Article 1657 outlines the obligations of the lessee, including paying rent as agreed. Conversely, Article 1654 details the lessor’s obligations, such as ensuring the lessee’s peaceful enjoyment of the lease. Disputes often arise when either party believes the other has breached these obligations, leading to actions for rescission or enforcement of the contract.

    Furthermore, the concept of ‘advance deposit’ itself is legally significant. While not explicitly defined in the Civil Code in the context of lease, it is generally understood as a sum of money given by the lessee to the lessor to secure the lease and cover potential future rental arrears or damages to the property. Its precise purpose, however, must be clearly stated in the contract to avoid misinterpretations, as highlighted in the Abella v. Court of Appeals case.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Abella v. Colarina – A Battle Over a Deposit

    The story begins in Naga City, where Mercedes Abella and Conrado Colarina entered into a lease agreement for a portion of the Juanabel Building. Colarina intended to operate a pawnshop and spent P68,000 on renovations to suit his business needs. Upon signing the contract, Colarina paid Abella P40,000, and this is where the dispute ignited.

    Abella claimed this P40,000 was ‘goodwill money,’ a payment for the privilege of leasing the space, separate from the monthly rent of P3,000. Colarina, on the other hand, insisted it was an advance deposit for rentals, a claim supported by a receipt issued by Abella herself. When Colarina temporarily stopped rental payments from November 1987 to April 1988, Abella, believing he had defaulted and that the deposit was not for rentals, took matters into her own hands.

    Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of the legal proceedings:

    1. Extrajudicial Rescission by Abella: Based on paragraph 13 of their lease contract, Abella, with the help of local police and barangay officials, took possession of the premises on May 1, 1988, effectively evicting Colarina.
    2. Colarina Files Suit: On May 5, 1988, Colarina promptly filed an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for ‘enforcement of contract of lease with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages,’ seeking to regain possession and compensation for damages.
    3. RTC Decision: The RTC sided with Abella, agreeing that the P40,000 was goodwill money and that Colarina had defaulted on rent. The RTC ordered Abella to return a portion of the deposit after deducting unpaid rent and dismissed Colarina’s case.
    4. Court of Appeals Reversal: Colarina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision. The CA favored Colarina, holding that the P40,000 was indeed an advance rental deposit, as clearly stated in the receipt. The CA ordered Abella to restore possession to Colarina and compensate him for the demolished improvements.
    5. Supreme Court Review: Abella elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the clarity of the receipt. Justice Francisco, writing for the Court, stated: “The above-quoted receipt is clear and unequivocal that the disputed amount is an advance deposit which will answer for any rental that Colarina may fail to pay.” The Court further noted, “Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.”

    While the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals on the interpretation of the deposit and the impropriety of Abella’s rescission, it modified the CA decision regarding restoration of possession. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the lease term had already expired in July 1991. Therefore, restoring possession was no longer feasible. However, the Court affirmed the monetary awards to Colarina, ensuring he was compensated for the improper eviction and damages.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Lessors and Lessees

    This case offers several crucial takeaways for anyone involved in lease agreements in the Philippines:

    • Clarity in Contracts is Paramount: Ambiguity is the enemy of smooth transactions and breeds disputes. Clearly define every term, especially financial obligations like deposits, rental amounts, and payment schedules. Use precise language and avoid vague terms.
    • Written Evidence Trumps Verbal Agreements: Always document agreements in writing. Receipts, contracts, and written communications are far more reliable in court than relying on memory or verbal understandings. The receipt in this case was the deciding factor.
    • Specify the Purpose of Deposits: Don’t just call it a ‘deposit.’ Explicitly state in the contract and receipt what the deposit is for – advance rental, security deposit for damages, or other specific purposes.
    • Extrajudicial Rescission Has Limits: While lease contracts may contain clauses allowing extrajudicial rescission, exercising this right improperly can lead to legal repercussions. Ensure there is a clear and justifiable breach of contract before resorting to extrajudicial measures. Seek legal counsel to avoid wrongful eviction claims.
    • Presumption of Due Care: The Court presumes that parties, especially businesspersons like Abella, act with due care when signing documents. It is difficult to later claim ignorance of the contents of a signed agreement without strong evidence of fraud or mistake, which was lacking in this case.

    Key Lessons from Abella v. Court of Appeals:

    • For Lessors: Be meticulous in drafting lease agreements and receipts. Clearly state the purpose of all payments received. Do not rely on verbal understandings. If considering extrajudicial rescission, ensure strict compliance with the contract terms and seek legal advice.
    • For Lessees: Always obtain receipts for all payments. Carefully review the lease agreement and ensure the terms, especially payment terms and deposit purposes, are clearly defined and reflect your understanding. If disputes arise, document everything and seek legal advice promptly.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is an advance deposit in a lease agreement?

    A: An advance deposit in a lease agreement is a sum of money paid by the lessee to the lessor at the beginning of the lease term. It is typically intended to be applied to future rental payments, often the last month’s rent, or to cover potential unpaid rent during the lease term, as seen in the Abella v. Court of Appeals case. Its specific purpose should always be clearly stated in the lease contract and receipt.

    Q2: What is ‘goodwill money’ in a lease context?

    A: ‘Goodwill money,’ also sometimes called ‘key money,’ is a payment made by a lessee to a lessor for the privilege of entering into a lease, especially in desirable locations or properties. It is separate from rent and is essentially a premium for securing the lease. In Abella v. Court of Appeals, the lessor unsuccessfully argued that the deposit was goodwill money, but the court favored the written receipt stating it was an advance deposit.

    Q3: What happens if a lease contract is not clear about the deposit’s purpose?

    A: If the lease contract is unclear about the deposit’s purpose, courts will look at extrinsic evidence, such as receipts and the parties’ actions, to determine their intent. However, as Abella v. Court of Appeals shows, clear written documentation, like a receipt explicitly stating ‘advance deposit for rentals,’ will be given significant weight. Ambiguity often leads to disputes and can be resolved against the party who caused the ambiguity.

    Q4: Can a lessor automatically rescind a lease contract if the lessee misses a rental payment?

    A: Not necessarily automatically. While many lease contracts contain clauses allowing rescission for breach of terms, including non-payment of rent, the process and requirements for valid rescission must be followed. Extrajudicial rescission, as attempted in Abella v. Court of Appeals, must be justified by a clear violation of the contract. If the lessee has made an advance deposit intended to cover rentals, as was the case here, non-payment may not automatically warrant rescission, especially if the deposit covers the arrears. Lessors should provide proper notice and demand and may need to go to court to formally rescind the contract, especially if the lessee disputes the rescission.

    Q5: What is the best way to avoid disputes over lease agreements?

    A: The best way to avoid lease disputes is to have a well-drafted, clear, and comprehensive lease agreement. Both lessors and lessees should ensure all terms, including rental amounts, payment schedules, deposit purposes, responsibilities for repairs and maintenance, and conditions for termination, are explicitly stated and understood. Seeking legal advice during the contract drafting stage can significantly minimize the risk of future disagreements.

    ASG Law specializes in Contract Law and Property Law, including Lease Agreements and Dispute Resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Finality of Compromise Agreements: When Can They Be Challenged?

    Compromise Agreements: Once Settled, Are They Truly Settled?

    G.R. Nos. 117018-19 and G.R. NO. 117327. June 17, 1996

    Imagine two business partners locked in a bitter dispute, finally reaching a compromise to settle their differences. They sign an agreement, the court approves it, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. But what happens if one party later claims they were misled or that crucial information was hidden? Can the agreement be challenged, or is it truly final? This case explores the circumstances under which a compromise agreement, once approved by the court, can still be questioned and potentially overturned.

    INTRODUCTION

    This case, Benjamin D. Ynson vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Felipe Yulienco and Emerito M. Salva, revolves around a dispute between Benjamin Ynson, the controlling stockholder of PHESCO, Inc., and Felipe Yulienco, a minority stockholder and former Vice-President. After disagreements arose, Yulienco and his lawyer, Salva, filed a case against Ynson alleging mismanagement. The parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement, which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved. However, a dispute later emerged regarding the valuation of Yulienco’s shares, leading to a legal battle over the finality of the compromise agreement.

    The central legal question is whether the compromise agreement, specifically the valuation of shares determined by a mutually appointed appraiser, was final and binding, or if it could be challenged based on allegations of fraud in the company’s financial statements.

    LEGAL CONTEXT

    A compromise agreement is a contract where parties, through reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Article 2028 of the Civil Code of the Philippines defines a compromise as “a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.”

    Once approved by the court, a compromise agreement has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties. This principle is rooted in the concept of res judicata, which prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court.

    However, a compromise agreement can be challenged on grounds of mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents, as provided under Article 2038 of the Civil Code. The burden of proving these grounds rests on the party seeking to invalidate the agreement.

    Example: Imagine two neighbors disputing a property boundary. They agree to a compromise, adjusting the fence line. If one neighbor later discovers the surveyor’s report used in the compromise was falsified, they can challenge the agreement based on fraud.

    CASE BREAKDOWN

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events in the Ynson case:

    • 1987: Yulienco and Salva file a case against Ynson for mismanagement.
    • October 1987: The parties enter into a compromise agreement, approved by the SEC, where PHESCO would pay Yulienco a sum of money, and Yulienco and Salva would sell their shares back to the company at a fair market value determined by AEA Development Corporation.
    • February 1988: AEA submits its appraisal report, valuing the shares at P311.32 per share.
    • Ynson moves for execution: Ynson seeks to implement the compromise agreement.
    • Yulienco and Salva oppose: They claim fraud in the 1986-1987 financial statements, arguing that assets were not included, undervaluing the shares.
    • SEC En Banc affirms: The SEC En Banc dismisses Yulienco and Salva’s appeal, upholding the validity of the appraisal and ordering the execution of the compromise agreement.
    • Court of Appeals reverses: The Court of Appeals initially rules in favor of Yulienco and Salva, ordering a new audit. However, on motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed its prior ruling.

    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the compromise agreement was final and binding. The Court emphasized the provision in the agreement stating that the valuation by AEA Development Corporation would be “final, irrevocable, and non-appealable.”

    The Court quoted the SEC En Banc’s finding: “Therefore, fraud was not employed in the preparation of the financial statements that would warrant the setting aside of the appraisal report. Likewise, we agree with the ruling of the Hearing Panel that the judgment had become final and executory by the submission of the appraisal report. Hence, the issuance of the writ of execution was proper.“

    The Supreme Court also emphasized that the findings of fact by administrative agencies, like the SEC, are generally respected if supported by substantial evidence.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

    This case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the terms of a compromise agreement before signing it. Parties should conduct thorough due diligence to verify the accuracy of information relied upon in the agreement.

    While compromise agreements are generally binding, they can be challenged if there is evidence of fraud, mistake, or other vitiating factors. However, the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the agreement.

    Key Lessons:

    • Thoroughly investigate all information before entering into a compromise agreement.
    • Ensure the agreement clearly states that the valuation is final and binding.
    • Understand that challenging a compromise agreement requires strong evidence of fraud or other vitiating factors.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

    Q: What is a compromise agreement?

    A: A compromise agreement is a contract where parties settle a dispute by making mutual concessions to avoid or end litigation.

    Q: Is a compromise agreement always final?

    A: Generally, yes. Once approved by the court, it has the force of law. However, it can be challenged under certain circumstances.

    Q: What are grounds to challenge a compromise agreement?

    A: Grounds include fraud, mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents.

    Q: Who has the burden of proving fraud in a compromise agreement?

    A: The party challenging the agreement has the burden of proving fraud or other vitiating factors.

    Q: What role does an appraiser play in a compromise agreement?

    A: An appraiser determines the value of assets, such as shares of stock, as part of the settlement. Their valuation can be deemed final and binding if the agreement so specifies.

    Q: What happens if the appraiser’s report is suspected to be based on fraudulent information?

    A: The party alleging fraud must present substantial evidence to support their claim. The court will consider the evidence and determine whether the appraisal should be set aside.

    Q: What is the significance of SEC approval in a compromise agreement?

    A: SEC approval reinforces the validity of the agreement, especially in cases involving corporate matters. However, it does not automatically preclude challenges based on fraud or other valid grounds.

    Q: How does this case affect future disputes regarding compromise agreements?

    A: It reinforces the principle that compromise agreements are generally binding but can be challenged with sufficient evidence of fraud or other vitiating factors. It also highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous language in the agreement regarding the finality of valuations.

    ASG Law specializes in corporate litigation and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Breach of Contract of Carriage: A Passenger’s Right to Damages

    When a Carrier Fails: Understanding Passenger Rights and Damages

    TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ATTY. RENATO T. ARROYO, G.R. No. 118126, March 04, 1996

    Imagine booking a relaxing sea voyage, only to find yourself stranded due to engine trouble. What are your rights as a passenger when a common carrier fails to deliver on its promise? This scenario, unfortunately, is not uncommon, and understanding your legal recourse is crucial. This case, Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Renato T. Arroyo, sheds light on a common carrier’s liability for damages when a voyage is interrupted due to negligence, emphasizing the importance of passenger safety and the carrier’s duty of extraordinary diligence.

    The Legal Framework: Common Carriers and Extraordinary Diligence

    Philippine law places a high burden on common carriers, those businesses that transport passengers or goods for a fee. The Civil Code, specifically Article 1733, mandates that common carriers observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of their passengers. This means they must take every possible precaution to prevent accidents and ensure a safe journey.

    Article 1755 of the Civil Code further elaborates on this duty: “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.” This standard requires more than just ordinary care; it demands the highest level of vigilance and prudence.

    Failure to meet this standard can result in liability for damages. Article 1764 of the Civil Code states that damages are awarded based on Title XVIII, which includes actual, moral, and exemplary damages. If a carrier acts in bad faith or with malice, they can be held responsible for all damages reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.

    Example: Imagine a bus company that knowingly uses tires that are worn out. If an accident occurs due to a tire blowout, the company could be liable for damages because they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of their passengers.

    The Voyage Interrupted: Trans-Asia Shipping Lines Case

    This case revolves around Atty. Renato Arroyo, who purchased a ticket from Trans-Asia Shipping Lines for a voyage from Cebu City to Cagayan de Oro City. Upon boarding, he noticed ongoing repairs on the vessel’s engine. The ship departed with only one engine running, and after an hour, it stopped due to engine trouble.

    Some passengers, including Atty. Arroyo, requested to return to Cebu City, which the captain allowed. The next day, Atty. Arroyo had to take another Trans-Asia vessel to reach his destination, incurring additional expenses and experiencing distress. He filed a complaint for damages, alleging breach of contract and tort.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case, finding no fraud, negligence, or bad faith on the part of the shipping line. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision, holding Trans-Asia liable for damages due to its failure to exercise utmost diligence. The CA emphasized that the shipping line knew the vessel was not in sailing condition but proceeded anyway, disregarding passenger safety.

    The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the CA’s decision with modification regarding the award of attorney’s fees. The SC emphasized the following points:

    • Unseaworthiness: The vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage began, as it was inadequately equipped with only one functioning engine.
    • Breach of Duty: The failure to maintain a seaworthy vessel constituted a clear breach of the duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
    • Bad Faith: By allowing the unseaworthy vessel to depart, the shipping line deliberately disregarded its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and acted in bad faith.

    The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Appeals:

    “Utmost diligence of a VERY CAUTIOUS person dictates that defendant-appellee should have pursued the voyage only when its vessel was already fit to sail. Defendant-appellee should have made certain that the vessel [could] complete the voyage before starting [to] sail. Anything less than this, the vessel [could not] sail x x x with so many passengers on board it.”

    The SC also noted:

    “In allowing its unseaworthy M/V Asia Thailand to leave the port of origin and undertake the contracted voyage, with full awareness that it was exposed to perils of the sea, it deliberately disregarded its solemn duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and obviously acted with bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner.”

    Real-World Implications: Safety First

    This case underscores the crucial importance of passenger safety in the operations of common carriers. It reinforces the principle that carriers cannot compromise safety for the sake of convenience or profit. The ruling serves as a reminder that extraordinary diligence is not merely a legal requirement but a moral obligation.

    Key Lessons:

    • Common carriers must ensure their vehicles or vessels are seaworthy and in good operating condition before commencing any voyage.
    • Passengers have the right to expect the highest level of care and safety from common carriers.
    • Breach of the duty of extraordinary diligence can result in liability for damages, including moral and exemplary damages.

    Hypothetical Example: A passenger books a flight with an airline. Before takeoff, the pilot discovers a minor mechanical issue but decides to proceed anyway. If the flight experiences a rough landing due to the mechanical issue, and a passenger suffers injuries, the airline could be held liable for damages because the pilot did not exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the passengers.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a common carrier?

    A: A common carrier is a business that transports passengers or goods for a fee, offering its services to the public.

    Q: What does “extraordinary diligence” mean for common carriers?

    A: It means they must take every possible precaution to prevent accidents and ensure the safety of their passengers or goods. It’s the highest standard of care under the law.

    Q: What types of damages can I claim if a common carrier breaches its duty?

    A: You may be able to claim actual (compensatory), moral, and exemplary damages, depending on the circumstances and the carrier’s level of fault.

    Q: What is the difference between moral and exemplary damages?

    A: Moral damages compensate for mental anguish, fright, and similar suffering. Exemplary damages are awarded to deter similar misconduct in the future.

    Q: What should I do if I experience a problem during a voyage or trip with a common carrier?

    A: Document everything, including photos, videos, and witness statements. Report the incident to the carrier and seek legal advice as soon as possible.

    Q: Can I claim damages for delays caused by a common carrier?

    A: Yes, but the circumstances matter. If the delay was due to negligence or bad faith on the carrier’s part, you may be entitled to damages.

    Q: What law covers interruptions during voyages?

    A: Article 698 of the Code of Commerce applies suppletorily to the Civil Code. It discusses the obligations of passengers to pay fares in proportion to the distance covered if a voyage is interrupted. The passenger has a right to indemnity if the interruption was caused by the captain exclusively.

    ASG Law specializes in transportation law and breach of contract disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.