DOLO CAUSANTE VS DOLO INCIDENTE
dolo dolo dolo caus causan ante te or frau fraud d
There There are two types types of fraud contempla contemplated ted in the performa performance nce of contra contracts cts::
incidente or incidenta incidentall fraud an and serious enough to render a contract voidable.In Geraldez v. Court of Appeals,! this Court
held
that:
This fraud or dolo which is present or employed at the time of birth or perfection of a contract contract may either either be dolo dolo causant causante e or dolo dolo incide incidente nte.. The first, first, or causal causal fraud fraud
1338, referred to in Article are: those deceptions or misrepresentations of a serious character employed by one party
other party would not have entered into the contract. "olo incidente, or incidental fraud which is referred to in Article #$%%, are those which ar e not character er and and with withou outt whic which h the the other party would still have serious in charact entered into the the contr contract act.. "olo causante determines or is the essential cause of the consent , while dolo incidente refers only to some part partic icul ular ar or acci accide dent nt of the the obli obliga gati tion on.. The effects of dolo causante are the nullity of the contract and the and without which the
dolo dolo inci incide dent nte e also also obli oblige ges s the the pers person on empl employ oyin ing g it to pay pay dama damage ges s. indemn indemnifi ificat cation ion of damage damages s,
and
In &oli &olidb dban an' ' Corp Corpora orati tion on v. (inda (indana nao o )erro )erroal allo loy y Corpo Corpora rati tion, on, et al., al.,th this is Court Court elab elabor orat ated ed on the dist distin inct ctiion betw betwee een n dol dolo caus causan antte and and dolo dolo incid nciden entte:
)rau )raud d refe refers rs to
all 'inds of deception
** whethe whetherr throug through h insidi insidious ous
machination, machination, manipulation, manipulation, concealment concealment or misrepresent misrepresentation ation ** that would lead an ordina ordinarily rily prudent prudent person person into into error error after after ta'ing ta'ing the circums circumstan tances ces into into account account.. In
dolo dolo caus causan ante te or caus causal al frau fraud d is basically a deception used by one party prio priorr to or simu simult ltan aneo eous us with with the the cont contra ract ct,, in orde orderr to contr ntract acts, a fraud aud 'nown own as
secure the consent of the other. +eedless to say, the deceit employed must be serious. In contradistinction, only some particular or accident of the obligation is referred to by incidental fraud or dolo incidente, or that which is not serious in character and without which the other party would have entered into the contract anyway. nder Article #$%%, the fraud must be
serious to annul or avoid a contract and
render it voidable. This fraud or deception must be so
material that had it not been
present, the defrauded party would not have entered into the contract. In the recent case of &pouses Carmen &. Tongson and -ose C. Tongson, et al., v. mergency /awnshop 0ula, Inc., this Court provided some e1amples of what constituted dolo causante or causal fraud: &ome of the instances where this Court found the e1istence of causal fraud include: 2#3 when the seller, who had no intention to part with her property, was 4tric'ed into believing4 that what she signed were papers pertinent to her application for the reconstitution of her burned certificate of title, not a deed of sale5 263 when the signature of the authorized corporate officer was forged5 or 2$3 when the seller was seriously ill, and died a wee' after signing the deed of sale raising doubts on whether the seller could have read, or fully understood, the contents of the documents he signed or of the conse7uences of his act. 2Citations omitted3. 8owever, Article #$%% also provides that if fraud is incidental, it follows that this type of fraud is not serious enough so as to render the original contract voidable. A classic e1ample of dolo incidente is 9oodhouse v. 8alili. In this case, the plaintiff Charles 9oodhouse entered into a written agreement with the defendant )ortunato 8alili to organize a partnership for the bottling and distribution of soft drin's. 8owever, the partnership did not come into fruition, and the plaintiff filed a Complaint in order to e1ecute the partnership. The defendant filed a Counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiff had defrauded him because the latter was not actually the owner of the franchise of a soft drin' bottling operation. Thus, defendant sought the nullification of the contract to enter into the partnership. This Court concluded that:
1 1 1 from all the foregoing 1 1 1 plaintiff did actuallyrepresent to defendant that he was the holder of the e1clusive franchise. The defendant was made to believe, and he actually believed, that plaintiff had the e1clusive franchise. 1 1 1 The record abounds with circumstances indicative that the fact that the principal consideration, the main cause that induced defendant to enter into the partnership agreement with plaintiff, was the ability of plaintiff to get the e1clusive franchise to bottle and distribute for the
The defendant was, therefore, led to the belief that plaintiff had the e1clusive franchise, but that the same was to be secured for or transferred to the partnership . The defendant or for the partnership. 1 1 1
plaintiff no longer had the e1clusive franchise, or the option thereto, at the time the contract was perfected. 0ut while he had already lost his option thereto 2when the contract was entered into3, the principal obligation that he assumed or undertoo' was to
partnership,
secure said franchise for the
as the bottler and distributor for the (ission "ry Corporation. 9e
declare, therefore, that if he was
guilty of a false representation , this was
not the causal consideration, or the principal inducement, that led plaintiff to enter into the partnership agreement. 0ut, on the other hand, this supposed ownership of an e1clusive franchise was actually the consideration or price plaintiff gave in e1change for the share of $! percent granted him in the net profits of the partnership business. "efendant agreed to give plaintiff $! per cent share in the net profits because he was transferring his e1clusive franchise to the partnership. 1 1 1. /laintiff had never been a bottler or a chemist5 he never had e1perience in the production or distribution of beverages. As a matter of fact, when the bottling plant being built, all that he suggested was about the toilet facilities for the laborers. 9e conclude from the above that while the representation that plaintiff had the e1clusive franchise did not vitiate defendants consent to the contract, it was used by plaintiff to get from defendant a share of $! per cent of the net profits5 in other words,
by pretending that he had the e1clusive franchise and promising to transfer it to defendant, he obtained the consent of the latter to give him 2plaintiff3 a big slice in the net profits. This is the dolo incidente defined because
in
article
#6;!
of
the
&panish
Civil
Code,
it was used to get the other partys consent to a big
share in the profits, an incidental matter in the agreement. Thus, this Court held that the
original agreement may not be
declared null and void.
This Court also said that the plaintiff had been
entitled to damages because of the refusal of the defendant to enter into the partnership. 8owever, the plaintiff was also held liable for damages to the defendant for the misrepresentation that the former had the e1clusive franchise to soft drin' bottling operations.
To summarize, if there is fraud in the erforman!e of the !ontra!t, then this fraud "i## $i%e rise to dama$es& If the fraud did not !ome# the imutin$ art' to $i%e his or her !onsent, it ma' not ser%e as the (asis to annu# the !ontra!t, "hi!h e)hi(its do#o !ausante& *o"e%er, the art' a##e$in$ the e)isten!e of fraud ma' ro%e the e)isten!e of do#o in!idente& This ma' ma+e the art' a$ainst "hom fraud is a##e$ed #ia(#e for dama$es& 1 1 1.4
