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

Sarmiento v. Sps. Cabrido, 401 SCRA 122 (2003)

The petitioner brought a pair of diamond earrings to the respondents' jewelry shop to have the diamonds reset into gold rings. One of the diamonds was successfully removed from its original setting but the other diamond was broken during removal by the shop's goldsmith using pliers instead of the proper miniature wire saw. The petitioner required the respondents to replace the broken diamond of the same size and quality, which they refused. The court found the goldsmith negligent for using improper tools and techniques, resulting in the breakage. As the jewelry shop failed to perform its obligation with ordinary diligence as required, it was liable for damages to replace the broken diamond.

Uploaded by

Sei Cortez
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
306 views1 page

Sarmiento v. Sps. Cabrido, 401 SCRA 122 (2003)

The petitioner brought a pair of diamond earrings to the respondents' jewelry shop to have the diamonds reset into gold rings. One of the diamonds was successfully removed from its original setting but the other diamond was broken during removal by the shop's goldsmith using pliers instead of the proper miniature wire saw. The petitioner required the respondents to replace the broken diamond of the same size and quality, which they refused. The court found the goldsmith negligent for using improper tools and techniques, resulting in the breakage. As the jewelry shop failed to perform its obligation with ordinary diligence as required, it was liable for damages to replace the broken diamond.

Uploaded by

Sei Cortez
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

Sarmiento v. Sps.

Cabrido, 401 SCRA 122 (2003)

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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the honorable Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the regional trial court’s
pronouncements that there exists no agreement between the petitioner and respondents that
the latter would answer for any liability should the diamond be damaged in the process of
dismounting them from the earrings.
HELD:

YES. 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. 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. In the case at bar, 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.

You might also like