43 Phil. 873 (1922)
On December 12, 1918, the plaintiff contracted his services to Tan Liuan and Co., as superintendent of an oil factory which the latter contemplated establishing in this city. The period of the contract extended over two years from the date mentioned; and the salary was to be at the rate of P600 per month during the first year and P700 per month during the second, with electric light and water for domestic consumption, and a residence to live in, or in lieu thereof P60 per month.
At the time this agreement was made, the machinery for the factory had not been acquired, though ten expellers had been ordered from the U.S. as agreed, for any reason the machinery failed to arrived in the city of Manila for the period of six months from the date given, the contract may be canceled by the party of the second part.
The machinery stated in the contract did not arrive in the city of Manila within the six months succeeding the making of the contract, and other equipment necessary for the factory. On June 28, 1919, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they had decided to rescind the contract effective June 30th. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action to recover damages in the amount of P13,000, covering salary and perquisites due and to become due under the contract.
Whether or not the plaintiff may demand perquisites under the rescinded contract.
Yes, it has been concluded that the Court of First Instance committed no error in rejecting the plaintiff claim in so far as damages are sought for the period subsequent to the expiration of the first six months, but in the assessment of damages due for six months period, the trial judge evidently overlooked the item of P60 specified in the plaintiff fourth assignment of error, which represent commutation of house rental for the month of June 1919. This amount the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover, in addition to the P300 awarded in the lower court.
The judgment of CFI is modified, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of P360 instead of P300 as allowed by the lower court.
A condition at once facultative and resolutory may be valid even though the condition is made to depend upon the will of the obligor. In the case ate bar, the defendants were under a positive obligation to cause the machinery to arrive in Manila, they would of course be liable, in the absence of affirmative proof showing that the non-arrival of the machinery was due to some cause not having its origin in their own act or will.
* Case digest by Neah Hope Bato, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018