G.R. No. 109087- Alelojo #3 PDF

Preview

Summary

CASE DIGESTIONG. No. 109087G. No. 109087 May 9, 2001RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC., petitioner,vs.FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., respondent.FACTS OF THE CASEA 30-day notice of intent to sue on January 15, 1979 was filed by Rodzssen Supply Co., Inc., which happens to be the defendant. Domestic letter credi...

Description

CASE DIGESTION #3 G.R. No. 109087

G.R. No. 109087 May 9, 2001 RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC., petitioner, vs. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., respondent. FACTS OF THE CASE A 30-day notice of intent to sue on January 15, 1979 was filed by Rodzssen Supply Co., Inc., which happens to be the defendant. Domestic letter credit for Ekman and Company in the sum of P190,000 with the plaintiff, Far East Bank, and Trust Co. It will be phased out on February 15, 1979. It was prolonged till the 16th of October, 1979. They bought five Hydraulic units, and three of them were successfully delivered to the defendant on March 16, 1979. The plaintiff paid Ekman P114, 000.00 on March 26, 1979. Ekman sent the remaining two pieces, which cost P76,000.00, before the LC maturity date. Ekman received the remaining P76,000.00 from the plaintiff. The bank paid the amount stipulated in the letter of credit for the first three hydraulic loaders supplied. Only the latter two hydraulic loaders are the subject of the current controversy. However, when Defendant pursued pay from Plaintiff, they refused to pay P76,000.00 for no valid reason. The plaintiff violated his contract by paying Ekman in ill faith, and this constituted a breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks a judgment directing defendant to pay the above-mentioned P76,000.00 plus interest, as well as 25% of the award amount as attorney's fees. ISSUE/S A. Whether it is civilly appropriate for a bank to pay a letter of credit that has long since expired or been cancelled. B. Whether or not respondent courts were accurate in concluding that petitioner and Ekman Co. had completed a sale. C. Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals was accurate in evading the issues rose in the appeal that under the trust receipt, petitioner was merely the depositary of private respondent with respect to the goods covered by the trust receipt." RULINGS OF THE COURT The trial court determined the plaintiff was entitled to P76,000.00 in damages from the defendant based on the following findings and conclusions: a) Under the contract of sale of the five loaders between Ekman and defendant, as to the acceptance of the two remaining units from the five loads by the defendant, he is duly liable to for the payment of the aforementioned units. b) Ekman was still held accountable to pay for the said amount, considering that Ekman had presented all the necessary documents, The plaintiff willingly paid Ekman the aforementioned sum of money. Plaintiff's voluntary and lawful act of payment resulted in the formation of a quasi-contract between plaintiff and defendant; and if the defendant were to escape the obligation, the outcome would be for the defendant to profit himself at plaintiff's expense. c) "Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant” as stated by the court.

Due of the two parties' negligence, the petition was dismissed. Both ought to be considered and both are accountable for their own legal fees The Court of Appeals' judgment was also crucial. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extra judicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made. Affirmed that the petitioner must pay the respondent P76,000 plus interest from April 7, 1983, the rate has been 6% per annum. It will be 12% yearly when the ruling is final. There was also no cost declaration and the attorney's award was revoked....