Sarmiento v Sun-Cabrido (Torts)

SARMIENTO V SUN-CABRIDO (2003)

[G.R. No. 141258. April 9, 2003]
TOMASA SARMIENTO, petitioner, vs. SPS. LUIS & ROSE SUN-CABRIDO and MARIA LOURDES SUN, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Tomasa Sarmiento, states that sometime in April 1994, a friend, Dra. Virginia Lao, requested her to find somebody to reset a pair of diamond earrings into two gold rings. Accordingly, petitioner sent a certain Tita Payag with the pair of earrings to Dingding’s Jewelry Shop, owned and managed by respondent spouses Luis and Rose Cabrido, which accepted the job order for P400.
Petitioner provided 12 grams of gold to be used in crafting the pair of ring settings. After 3 days, Tita Payag delivered to the jewelry shop one of Dra. Lao’s diamond earrings which was earlier appraised as worth .33 carat and almost perfect in cut and clarity. Respondent Ma. Lourdes (Marilou) Sun went on to dismount the diamond from its original setting. Unsuccessful, she asked their goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to do it. Santos removed the diamond by twisting the setting with a pair of pliers, breaking the gem in the process.
Petitioner required the respondents to replace the diamond with the same size and quality. When they refused, the petitioner was forced to buy a replacement in the amount of P30,000.
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages on June 28, 1994.
private respondents vigorously denied any transaction between Dingdings’ Jewelry Shop and the petitioner, through Tita Payag.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. MTC: declared respondents liable.
2. RTC: absolving the respondents of any responsibility arising from breach of contract. while ostensibly admitting the existence of the said agreement, private respondents, nonetheless denied assuming any obligation to dismount the diamonds from their original settings.
3. CA: declared the private respondents not liable for damages.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
Respondents
- dismounting of the diamond from its original setting was part of the obligation assumed by the private respondents under the contract of service.
Petitioners
- agreement was for crafting two gold rings mounted with diamonds only and did not include the dismounting of the said diamonds from their original setting.

ISSUE:
Whether respondents are liable

RULING:
Yes.
it is beyond doubt that Santos acted negligently in dismounting the diamond from its original setting. It appears to be the practice of

the trade to use a miniature wire saw in dismounting precious gems, such as diamonds, from their original settings. However, Santos employed a pair of pliers in clipping the original setting, thus resulting in breakage of the diamond. The jewelry shop failed to perform its obligation with the ordinary diligence required by the circumstances. It should be pointed out that Marilou examined the diamond before dismounting it from the original setting and found the same to be in order. Its subsequent breakage in the hands of Santos could only have been caused by his negligence in using the wrong equipment. Res ipsa loquitur. (the thing speaks for itself)
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties. Corollarily, those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.23[23] The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
Marilou and Zenon Santos were employed at Dingding’s Jewelry Shop in order to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in its business.
Private respondents Luis Cabrido and Rose Sun-Cabrido are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of P30,000 as actual damages and P10,000 as moral damages in favor of the petitioner