[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
315 views1 page

Tee v. Tacloban Electric

1) Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant Co. approached the plaintiff to prepare and file an application for foreign exchange allocation to purchase machinery for the company's expansion. In exchange, the company promised to pay the plaintiff's usual fee. 2) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance after the company failed to pay the agreed upon fee. 3) The court ruled the agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it was against public policy. All foreign exchange applications must go through authorized agent banks, not individuals, according to Central Bank rules and procedures.

Uploaded by

Vhinjealeen Mae Costillas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
315 views1 page

Tee v. Tacloban Electric

1) Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant Co. approached the plaintiff to prepare and file an application for foreign exchange allocation to purchase machinery for the company's expansion. In exchange, the company promised to pay the plaintiff's usual fee. 2) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance after the company failed to pay the agreed upon fee. 3) The court ruled the agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it was against public policy. All foreign exchange applications must go through authorized agent banks, not individuals, according to Central Bank rules and procedures.

Uploaded by

Vhinjealeen Mae Costillas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

190.

TEE VS TALOCBAN ELECTRIC AND ICE PLANT GO

FACTS:

Defendant Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant Co., Inc., acting through defendants Chan Bun Chit and Victoriano
Chan, approached plaintiff and, informing him that they needed foreign exchange allocation for the
purchase of machineries and other supplies for the expansion of the Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant Co.,
Inc., they requested plaintiff to prepare, file and work for the approval of the application for the said foreign
exchange, knowing plaintiff had much experience therein, and promising to pat plaintiff the usual fee for
his work, to which plaintiff agreed.

Defendant failed to comply with said agreement, hence plaintiff filed an action for specific performance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the agreement is valid

RULING:

No. Because the agreement is against public policy.

All applications for foreign exchange shall be made through authorized agent banks, which are the only
parties authorized to deal with the Central Bank or the Bankers Committee in connection therewith.
Consistently with this scheme, plan or pattern, the circular declares that, "under no circumstances should
any applicant, his agent, and representatives follow up an application with the Central Bank." Plaintiff's
alleged contract to work for the approval of the foreign exchange application in question and the services
he claims to have performed in pursuance of this contract, "following up the papers in the different
governments offices to which they were referred" — one of which is the Central Bank — are inconsistent
with the law (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) creating the Central Bank — upon the issued — and,
hence, contrary to the public policy thus adopted. In short, said contract is "inexistent and void from the
beginning." (Article 1409 (1), Civil Code of the Philippines).

You might also like