Case Digest Module 4 PDF

Preview

Summary

G. No. L-15645 January 31, 1964 PAZ P. ARRIETA and VITALIADO ARRIETA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, defendant- appellant, MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant- appellee.FACTS:1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) On July 1,1952, ...

Description

G.R. No. L-15645 January 31, 1964 PAZ P. ARRIETA and VITALIADO ARRIETA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, defendantappellant, MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC., defendantappellee. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) On July 1,1952, Arrieta and National Rice and Corn Corporation entered into a contract in which the former agreed to deliver 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice to the latter at a price of $203.00 per metric ton, and in exchange, NARIC agreed to pay for the imported rice "by means of an irrevocable, confirmed, and assignable letter of credit in US currency in favor of Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately." NARIC applied to open a letter of credit with the Philippine National Bank in the amount of $3,614,000; however, the defendant failed to do so, and the letter of credit was delayed when the obligation to pay the supplier became due, resulting Arrieta to lose the opportunity to profit from the sale as the agreement was eventually forfeited, and the 5% deposit was also forfeited pursuant to Burma laws, so Arrieta sent a letter to the appellant, demanding compensation of $286,000. After the demand was denied, she filed an appeal in this case. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) In its defense, NARIC filed a counterclaim claiming that the failure of the projected contract to materialize resulted in unrealized profit damages of $406,000. It also filed a third-party lawsuit against the Manila Underwriters Insurance Company, holding it liable for the performance bond it made in Arrieta's favor. 3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA)

The trial court awarded Arrieta $286,000 in breach of contract damages and NARIC's counterclaim and third-party complaint were dismissed. Hence, an appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed. Issue/s (one sentence) Whether or not NARIC is liable for the damages. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) The appealed decision is hereby upheld, with the sole modification that the award be converted into Philippine pesos at the rate of exchange in effect at the time the obligation was incurred when the contract was executed, while the appellee Manila Underwriters Insurance Company is released from any liability in this case; no costs are also declared. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) The inability of NARIC to meet the condition imposed by the Philippine National Bank for granting the Letter of Credit, was evidently what delayed the opening of the Letter of Credit and ultimately, caused the cancellation of the allocation in Burma. However, the defendant- appellant's inability was due to more than just failing to meet PNB's conditions. Its culpability stems from its willful and deliberate assumption of contractual obligations despite its financial incapacity to complete the presentation, which it admitted to PNB in its application. According to Article 1170 of the Civil Code, not only debtors guilty of fraud, negligence, or default, but also any debtor who fails to perform his obligation in general, is obligated to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby.

G.R. No. L-27782 July 31, 1970 OCTAVIO A. KALALO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO J. LUZ, defendant-appellant. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Octavio Kalalo, a licensed civil engineer operating under the firm name of O. A. Kalalo and Associates, agreed to provide engineering design services for a fee to Alfredo Luz. On December 11, 1961, Kalalo sent Luz a statement of account indicating that the balance due for services rendered was ₱59,505, and on May 18, 1962, the defendant sent the plaintiff a resume of fees due to the latter, as well as a check for ₱10,861.08, but Kalalo refused to accept the check as full payment of the balance of the fees due him. Kalalo lodged a complaint with four causes of action: (1) ₱28,000 as 20% of the amount paid to Luz in the International Research Institute project and the balance of ₱30,881.25 as fees, (2) ₱17,0000 as consequential and moral damages, (3) ₱55,000 as moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, and (4) ₱25,000 as actual damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Luz alleged that some of Kalalo's services were not executed as agreed, and the remaining fees were only ₱10,861.08. He denied liability for any damages claimed by Kalalo and asserted special defenses, claiming that the latter has no cause of action and is in estoppel as a result of the statement of accounts, and that his claim concerning one of the projects was premature because Luz had not yet been paid for said project. Furthermore, Kalalo's services were either incomplete, violated the terms of the agreement, or were inadequate.

3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) Kalalo was favored by the trial court, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $28,000 and ₱51,539.91, plus the legal rate of interest from the filing of the complaint until the case was settled. On top of that, there will be an additional ₱8,000 in attorney fees. At the time of judgment payment, the amount of $28,000 was to be converted into pesos based on the Central Bank of the Philippines' certified rate of exchange of the US dollar to the Philippine peso. Luz appealed to the Supreme court directly to raise legal issues. Issue/s (one sentence) Whether or not the dollar-peso exchange rate was those at the time of judgment payment or when the research institute project became due and demandable. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) Trial court's decision is affirmed, with costs levied against the defendant-appellant. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) Under the agreement, Kalalo was entitled to $28,000 which began to accrue on August 25, 1961, or after the enactment of the Republic Act. 529 (June 16, 1950). Hence, the statute's provision requiring payment at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred is inapplicable. R.A. 529 forbade payment in dollars incurred after the Act's enactment, so the rate of exchange must be that prevailing at the time of payment.

G.R. No. L-27796 March 25, 1976 ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., WILHELM WILHELMSEN MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellees. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Wilhelm Wilhelmsen's agent, Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., issued Bill of Landing No. 34 in the name of Winthrop Products, Inc. as shipper, with arrival notice to consignee in Manila. The shipment was insured against loss or damage by the shipper with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company before the SS Tai ping arrived at the Port of Manila and unloaded its aforementioned shipment into the custody of Manila Port Service: 1 drum and several cartons of medicine were in poor condition. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company filed an action against the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking $1,134.46 in damages plus costs. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) The consignee filed a claim for the value of the damaged drum and cartons of medicine with the carrier and Manila Port Service, who both refused to pay, and then with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, which paid the consignee $1,134.46 for the insured value of the lost and damaged goods, plus other expenses incurred in connection therewith. Meanwhile, Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company filed a counter-claim against the insurer on August 23, 1961. All defendants contended that they were not agents of the carrying vessel and only delivered the shipment in the condition in which it was received.

3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) On March 10, 1965, the lower court issued its decision, ordering Macondray & Co, Barber Steamship Lines, Inc, and Wilhelm Wilhelmsen to jointly and severally pay ₱300 to Winthrop Steams Inc., with legal interest accruing from the filing of the complaint until the amount was fully paid. Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service, on the other hand, must jointly and severally pay the consignee an amount of ₱809.67 plus legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint until the amount is fully paid. Winthrop Steams Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that it was also entitled to $1,134.46 in damages, but the lower court denied it. It filed an appeal, claiming that the aforementioned parties should paid $1,134.46 in pesos at a rate of ₱3.90 for every US dollar instead of ₱2.00. Issue/s (one sentence) 1. Whether or not the carrier's liability in the event of loss or damage is limited to the CIF value of the lost or damaged goods. 2. Whether or not St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, which settled a claim in dollars to Winthrop-Steams Inc, should be compensated in pesos on the day of discharge or on the date of ruling. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) Wherefore, the appealed judgement is upheld, with costs assessed against the plaintiff-appellant.

5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) A stipulation establishing or limiting the amount recoverable from the carrier in the event of loss or deterioration of the goods is valid if it is: (1) reasonable and just under the circumstances, and (2) has been fairly and freely agreed upon. After paying the insured's claim for damages under the insurance, St. Paul becomes subrogated to the assured's rights, thus it can only recover the amount recoverable by the latter as a subrogee. The plaintiff-appellant's argument that, due to extraordinary inflation, it should be reimbursed for its dollar payments at the rate of exchange on the date of the judgment, rather than the date of the loss or damage, is untenable. The carrier's obligation to pay for the damage arose when it failed to deliver the shipment to the consignee in good condition.

G.R. No. 105188 January 23, 1998 MYRON C. PAPA, Administrator of the Testate Estate of Angela M. Butte, petitioner, vs. A.U. VALENCIA and CO. INC., FELIX PEÑARROYO, SPS. ARSENIO B. REYES & AMANDA SANTOS, and DELFIN JAO, respondents. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Petitioner, acting as attorney-in-fact, Anne Butte, allegedly sold a parcel of land to private respondent Penarroyo, which was mortgaged to the Associated Banking Corporation along with several other parcels of land. The buyer made a ₱40,000 check payment through Valencia and a ₱5,000 cash payment, both of which were accepted by petitioner as proven by various receipts. On appeal, the petitioner contended that the alleged sale of the subject property was not consummated because he did not encash the check, which had no effect of payment. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) The aforementioned property, along with other Butte properties, appeared to have previously been mortgaged to the bank, and the petitioner have been collecting monthly rent from the tenants of the property, despite knowing that the property had already been sold to Pearroyo. Private respondent Penarroyo demanded that the title to the property be transferred to him after Butte died, but the bank refused.

As a result, the respondents filed a specific performance complaint against the petitioner in the Pasig Regional Trial Court, demanding that the title be delivered and the accrued rentals be turned over.

3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) The lower court sided with the private respondents and ordered herein petitioner to convey or pay for the property. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was filed by the petitioner. CA affirmed the lower court's decision, with modifications. Issue/s (one sentence) Whether or not the check is a valid tender of payment. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) According to the verdict of the Supreme Court, the petition for review is denied, and the appellate court's decision of January 27, 1992 is upheld. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) Payment by checks shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed or when through the fault of the creditor, they have been impaired (Article 1249 of the Civil Code). Although it is correct that the delivery of a check results in payment only when it is cashed, following the Article 1249 of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if the debtor is prejudiced by the delay in a formal presentation of information to a court.

Acceptance of a check implied a commitment to exercise due diligence in presenting it for payment. If the person who receives it suffers a loss as a result of his or her failure to exercise due diligence, the check will be considered actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it was written. If the non-presentment of the check was due to the creditor's error, the debtor can no longer be held liable.

A.M. No. 21901-96 June 27, 1978 REPARATIONS COMMISSION, plaintiff-appellants, vs. UNIVERSAL DEEP-SEA FISHING CORPORATION and MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC., defendant-appellants. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) The plaintiff, Reparations Commission (RC) awarded Universal six (6) trawl boats, which were delivered two at a time, with each delivery covered by a Contract of Condition Purchase and Sale that provided for the same payment schedules. A performance bond in the amount of ₱53,643 was performed in favor of RC to ensure faithful compliance with the obligations under said contract, with Universal as principal and Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. as surety. RC sued Universal and its surety on August 10, 1962, to recover various amounts owed under the contracts. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation alleged that the plaintiff created an ambiguity in the terms of the contracts in question regarding the amounts and due dates of the first installments, which should have been specified before the creditor could demand payment from the debtor.

In the Meantime, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. argued that the action was premature, but it filed a cross-claim against Universal for reimbursement of any money it may have to pay the plaintiff as a result of the complaint, including interest, as well as for the collection of accumulated and unpaid premiums on the bonds, plus interest. 3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) The lower court ordered defendants to pay ₱53,643 in the first cause of action, ₱68,777.77 in the second cause of action, and ₱54,508 in the third cause of action jointly and severally. Hence, this appeal. Issue/s (one sentence) Whether or not the judgment, first installments under the judgment, three contracts of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods were already due and demandable at the time the judgment and complaint were filed. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with modification, Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation is further ordered to pay judgment, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., judgment, amount of ₱7,251.42 for judgment, premiums and documentary stamps on judgment, performance bonds, while the Appellants shall pay proportionate costs. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) Article 1252 to 1254 provides that he who has various debts of the same kind in favor of one and the same creditor, may declare at the time of making the payment, to which of them the same must be applied. Unless the parties so stipulate, or when the application of payment is made by the party for whose benefit the term has been constituted, application shall not be made as to debts which are not yet due.

The outlined rules in the preceding articles apply to a person who owes several judgment debts of the same type to a single creditor. They cannot be applied to a person whose obligation as a mere surety is both contingent and singular, in this case full and faithful compliance with the terms of the contract of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods.

G.R. No. 123855 November 20, 2000 NEREO J. PACULDO, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO C. REGALADO, respondent. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Nereo Paculdo and Bonifacio Regalado signed a twenty-five (25) year lease contract for a parcel of land in Fairview Park, Quezon City, with a wet market building. The former also leased additional properties from the respondent, ten (10) of which were within the Fairview compound and the other along Quirino Highway, as well as bought heavy equipment and vehicles from the respondent. Petitioner Paculdo filed a motion for injunction and damages, requesting that respondents refrain from interfering with his possession of the lease-assigned property. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Respondent sent two demand letters to petitioner demanding payment of the back rentals, threatening to terminate the lease contract if payment was not made within fifteen (15) days, due to petitioner's failure to pay ₱361, 895.55 in rental for the month of May 1992, and ₱450, 000 in monthly rental for the months of June and July.

Regalado mortgaged the land subject to the lease contract, including improvements made to the land totaling ₱35,000,000 to Monte de Piedad Savings as security for a loan without petitioner's consent, and thus refused to take petitioner's daily rental payments. He filed his own ejectment complaint against the petitioner on the same day the petitioner filed his. 3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) Metropolitan Trial Court- directed the petitioner to vacate the premises and pay ₱527,119.27 in outstanding monthly rentals as of June 30, 1992, plus 2% interest, plus ₱450,000 each month until the premises were vacated and turned over to Regalado, as well as ₱5,000,000 in litigation fees. Regional Trial Court upheld the MTC- Paculdo voluntarily vacated the property and there was complete turn over by July 12, 1994, after the Regional Trial Court upheld the MTC decision and issued a writ of execution. Paculdo filed a petition to the appellate court. Issue/s (one sentence) Whether or not the petitioner was truly in arrears on the subject property's rental payments at the time the ejectment complaint was filed. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) The petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals' decision is reversed and set aside, while the complaint filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City is dismissed. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion)

According to Article 1252 of the Civil Code, the right to specify which among his various obligations to the same creditor is to be satisfied first rest with the debtor. When petitioner made the payment in the current case, he made it clear to respondent that it was to be applied to his rental obligations on the Fairview wet market property. Respondent, on the other hand, used a significant portion of the amount paid by petitioner to satisfy an obligation that was not yet due and demandable—the payment of the eight heavy equipment. Law stated that if the debtor did not declare which of his debts with the creditor the payment is to be applied to when he made the payment, the payment must be applied first to the debt that is the most onerous to the debtor. The petitioner's most onerous lease in the case at hand is over the Fairview wet market. G.R. No. 118342 January 5, 1998 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA CUBA, respondents. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Cuba fail...