Law books are replete with the use of "former" and "latter" to refer to persons. Many times this result in confusion to readers especially if the persons are only called by letters, not their full names. Sometimes even the author can lose track of the correct person he is referring to.
From page 354 of De Leon's Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency and Trusts, 2010 Ed. we find an amusing use of the two words.
In this case though, it is easy to pinpoint that LS is the former and TWS is the latter. However, the confusion springs from the statement that LS held herself solidarily liable with TWS for prompt payment of the rental. How could that be since LS is the owner of the premises?
The book attributed the case to Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 171 [1988]. Searching
Lawphil.net we get the following passage:
On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the former-s use as a branch office. In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the party of the part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Una 0. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc.
It turned out that there is another party aside from TWS and LS (who is actually Lina Sevilla). And this party is the owner of the premises. Problem solved.
But this passage from lawphil.net has obviously a couple of typos and confusing reference of its own such as "former-s", "party of the part", "Una O. Sevilla". This is typical of the inaccuracies that one encounters with Lawphil materials. The one found in
ChanRobles.com is exactly the same. They may have the same source after all.
A check with the
Phil. Reports Online shows the correct version:
On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the
appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by
and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the
Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as
party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the
Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the
first part at Mabini St., Manila for
the former's use as a branch office. In the said contract
the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the
party of the second part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed
on. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the
herein appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World
Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of
Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3%
was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc.
That's better!
