Oblicon Cases (Arts 1240-1249)- FINALS

8/12/2019 Oblicon Cases (Arts 1240-1249)- FINALS

1/21

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, 232SCRA 302 , G.R. No. 0!"2 #a$ 0, %%!

G.R. No. 104612 May 10, 1994BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (s!!"sso#$%&$ %&'"#"s' o)OMMER)IAL AND TR*ST )O.+, petitioner,vs.HON. )O*RT OF APPEALS, EASTERN PL-OOD )ORP. a&BENIGNO D. LIM, respondents.Leonen, Ramirez & Associates for petitioner.Constante A. Ancheta for private respondents.

DA/IDE, R., J.:The petitioner urges us to review and set aside the amendedDecision1of 6 March 1992 of respondent Court of Appeals in CA!.". C# $o. 2%&'9 which modi(ed the Decision of 1% $ovem)er

199* of +ranch 19 of the "egional Trial Court "TC- of Manila inCivil Case $o. &/296&, entitled Bank of the Philippine Islands(successorininterest of Commercial Bank and !rust Compan"#versus $astern Pl"%ood Corporation and Benino '. Lim. The Courtof Appeals had a0rmed the dismissal of the complaint )ut hadgranted the defendants counterclaim for ''1,261.// whichrepresents the outstanding )alance of their account with theplainti3.As culled from the records and the pleadings of the parties, thefollowing facts were dul4 esta)lished5rivate respondents astern l4wood Corporation astern- and+enigno D. 7im 7im-, an o0cer and stoc8holder of astern, held atleast one oint )an8 account :and;or: account- with the

Commercial +an8 and Trust Co. C+TC-, the predecessorininterestof petitioner +an8 of the hilippine


2/21

)etween the contending parties in respect of entitlement to theAccount +alance, preclude Comtrust from instituting an action forrecover4 against astpl4 and;or Mr. 7im in the event the 7oan isdeclared due and pa4a)le and astpl4 and;or Mr. 7im shall default

in pa4ment of all o)ligations and lia)ilities thereunder.n 2' Banuar4 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a decisiona0rming the decision of the trial court.


3/21

su)mit simultaneousl4 their memoranda.The 8e4 issues in this case are whether +< can demand pa4mentof the loan of &',***.** despite the e@istence of the HoldoutAgreement and whether +< is still lia)le to the private respondents

on the account su)ect of the Holdout Agreement after itswithdrawal )4 the heirs of #elasco.The collection suit of +< is )ased on the promissor4 note for&',***.**. >n its face, the note is an unconditional promise topa4 the said amount, and as stated )4 the respondent Court ofAppeals, :ItJhere is no Kuestion that the promissor4 note is anegotia)le instrument.: 13nl4 a negotiation )4 indorsement could haveoperated as a valid transfer to ma8e +< a holder in due course.


4/21

other than those in whose favor the o)ligation was constituted orwhose right or authorit4 to receive pa4ment is indisputa)le. Thepa4ment of the mone4 deposited with +< that will e@tinguish itso)ligation to the creditordepositor is pa4ment to the person of the

creditor or to one authoried )4 him or )4 the law to receive it.2

a4ment made )4 the de)tor to the wrong part4 does note@tinguish the o)ligation as to the creditor who is without fault ornegligence, even if the de)tor acted in utmost good faith and )4mista8e as to the person of the creditor, or through error induced)4 fraud of a third person. 26The pa4ment then )4 +< to the heirsof #elasco, even if done in good faith, did not e@tinguish itso)ligation to the true depositor, astern. >"D"D.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125862. April 15, 2004]

FRANCISCO CULABA an !"#"$RIA CULABA, oin% &'(in)(( 'n)r*+) na) an (*-l) C'la&a S*or),/petitioners, vs. COUR$OF A"ALS an SAN #IGU"L CORORA$ION,respondents.

! " C I S I O N

CALL"O, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules ofCivil Procedure of the Decision!" of the Court of #ppeals in C#$%&R& CV No&!'()* affir+in, in toto the Decision-" of the Re,ional Trial Court of .a/ati01ranch !)(0 in Civil Case No& !2)) for collection of su+ of +one30 and theResolution)" den3in, the +otion for reconsideration of the said decision&

$+) Uni(p'*) Fa*(

The spouses rancisco and De+etria Culaa were the owners andproprietors of the Culaa Store and were en,a,ed in the sale anddistriution of San .i,uel Corporation6s 7S.C8 eer products& S.C soldeer products on credit to the Culaa spouses in the a+ount of P-(0*52&220as evidenced 3 Te+porar3 Credit Invoice No& 4-'4)&4" Thereafter0 theCulaa spouses +ade a partial pa3+ent of P)0942&220 leavin, an unpaidalance of P-40'!2&22& #s the3 failed to pa3 despite repeated de+ands0S.C filed an action for collection of a su+ of +one3 a,ainst the+ efore theRTC of .a/ati0 1ranch !)(&

The defendant$spouses denied an3 liailit30 clai+in, that the3 hadalread3 paid the plaintiff in full on four separate occasions& To sustantiate

this clai+0 the defendants presented four 748 Te+porar3 Char,e Sales 7TCS8:i;uidation Receipts0 as followsul3 '0 !'')& Itselated notice showed its ,larin, lac/ of interest or concern for itscusto+ers6 welfare0 and0 in su+0 its ne,li,ence&

#nent the second issue0 petitioner rancisco Culaa avers that thea,ent to who+ the accounts were paid had all the ph3sical and +aterial

attriutes or indications of a representative of the private respondent0 leavin,no dout that he was dul3 authoriBed 3 the latter& Petitioner ranciscoCulaa6s testi+on3 that he does not necessaril3 chec/ the contents of thereceipts issued to hi+ e?cept for the a+ount indicated if the" sa+eaccuratel3 reflects his actual pa3+ent is a co++on attitude of custo+ers&=e could0 thus0 not e faulted for pa3in, the private respondent6s a,ent onfour occasions& Petitioner rancisco Culaa asserts that he +ade thepa3+ent in ,ood faith0 to an a,ent who issued S.C receipts whichappeared to e ,enuine& Thus0 accordin, to the petitioners0 the3 had dul3paid their oli,ation in accordance with #rticles !-42 and !-4- of the New

6


7/21

Civil Code&

The private respondent0 for its part0 avers that the urden of provin,pa3+ent is with the detor0 in consonance with the e?press provision of

#rticle !-)) of the New Civil Code& The petitioners +iseral3 failed to provethe self$servin, alle,ation that the3 alread3 paid their liailit3 to the privaterespondent& urther+ore0 under nor+al circu+stances0 an oli,or would not@ust pa3 a sustantial a+ount to so+eone who+ he saw for the first ti+e0without even as/in, for the latter6s na+e&

$+) R'lin% o *+) Co'r*

The petition is dis+issed&

The petitioners ;uestion the findin,s of the Court of #ppeals as towhether the pa3+ent of the petitioners6 oli,ation to the private respondent

was properl3 +ade0 thus0 e?tin,uishin, the sa+e& This is clearl3 a factualissue0 and e3ond the purview of the Court to delve into& This is inconsonance with the well$settled rule that findin,s of fact of the trial court0especiall3 when affir+ed 3 the Court of #ppeals0 are accorded the hi,hestde,ree of respect0 and ,enerall3 will not e distured on appeal& Suchfindin,s are indin, and conclusive on the Court&!9" urther+ore0 it is notthe Court6s function under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court0 as a+ended0 toreview0 e?a+ine and evaluate or wei,h the proative value of the evidencepresented&!("

To reiterate0 the issue ein, raised 3 the petitioners does not involvea ;uestion of law0 ut a question of fact0 not co,niBale 3 this Court in apetition for review under Rule 45& The @urisdiction of the Court in such a caseis li+ited to reviewin, onl3 errors of law0 unless the factual findin,s ein,

assailed are not supported 3 evidence on record or the i+pu,ned @ud,+entis ased on a +isapprehension of facts&!'"

# careful stud3 of the records of the case reveal that the appellatecourt affir+ed the trial court6s factual findin,s as followsud,+ent& Two da3s latter0 or on Nove+er *0 !'(50 thepetitioner filed a .otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated Octoer-40 !'(5&

The appellate court in a Resolution dated Nove+er !-0 !'(5 ,ranted the+otion for entr3 of @ud,+ent filed 3 private respondent& It directed the entr3of @ud,+ent and ordered the re+and of the records of the case to the courtof ori,in for e?ecution&

On Nove+er !40 !'(50 petitioner0 without waitin, for the resolution of theappellate court in the ur,ent +otion for reconsideration it filed on Nove+er*0 !'(50 filed the instant petition to annul and set aside the resolution of theappellate court dated Octoer -40 !'(5 which denied the .otion for

Reconsideration of its decision dated #u,ust -90 !'(5&

In a +otion dated Nove+er -!0 !'(50 petitioner pra3ed of the issuance ofte+porar3 restrainin, order to en@oin the appellate court fro+ re+andin, therecords of the case for e?ecution of the @ud,+ent& The petitioner also filed aSupple+ent to Petition forCertiorari0 dated Nove+er -!0 !'(5&

In a Resolution dated Nove+er -90 !'(50 this Court0 actin, on the petition0re;uired private respondent to file its Co++ent ,ranted the pra3er of thepetitioner in his ur,ent +otion0 and a te+porar3 restrainin, order was issueden@oinin, the appellate court fro+ re+andin, the records of the case fore?ecution of @ud,+ent&

Private respondent filed its CO..ENT dated Dece+er !40 !'(5&

In a Resolution dated >anuar3 -90 !'(*0 the Court resolved to ,ive duecourse to the petition0 and re;uired the parties to su+it their +e+oranda& Inco+pliance with the said Resolution0 the parties filed their respective+e+oranda&

On #u,ust !50 !'(*0 petitioner filed a .otion to Re+and Records to the

9


10/21

Court of #ppeals in view of the resolution of this Court dated .a3 )20 !'(* inthe =aalu3as case which considered and set aside its decision dated#u,ust 50 !'(5 3 ,ivin, it prospective application e,innin, one +onthafter the pro+ul,ation of the said resolution& This +otion was opposed 3

private respondent& On Septe+er --0 !'(*0 petitioner filed its Repl3 toOpposition to which private respondent filed its re@oinder& In a Resolutiondated Dece+er )0 !'(*0 the +otion to re+and records was denied&

PetitionerHs 1rief raised si? 7*8 assi,n+ent of errors0 to witGNE )20 !'(2P:GS #PP:IC#1:E INTEREST C=#R%ES ON OVERDGE #CCOGNT #NDOT=ER #VTGR1O GE: :ITIN% #ND DE:IVERIES T=#T #SSI%NOR.# RO. TI.E TO TI.E RECEIVE RO. #SSI%NEE&L

III&

T=E I#C ERRED IN RG:IN% T=#T T=E DEED O #SSI%N.ENT

S#TISIES T=E REMGISITES O D#TION IN P#.ENT 7F=IC= =#ST=E EECT O I..EDI#TE EJTIN%GIS=.ENT O T=E O1:I%#TION8DESPITE T=E #CT T=#T S#ID DEED O #SSI%N.ENT 7!8 COVERSGTGRE O1:I%#TION OR L#PP:IC#1:E INTEREST C=#R%ES ONOVER DGE #CCOGNT #ND OT=ER #VTGR1O GE: :ITIN% T=EDE:IVERIES T=#T #SSI%NOR .# RO. TI.E TO TI.E RECEIVERO. #SSI%NEESL #ND 7-8 INC:GDES #N EJPRESS RESERV#TION 1#SSI%NEE TO DE.#ND G:: P#.ENT O T=E O1:I%#TIONS O T=E#SSI%NOR LIN C#SE O GNRE#SON#1:E DE:# OR NON$RECEIPTO #SSI%NEE O T=E #ORE.ENTIONED GNDS #NDOR REGND

O SPECI#: GND I.PORT P#.ENT RO. T=E %OVERN.ENT DGETO #N C#GSE OR RE#SON F=#TSOEVER&

IV&

T=E I#C ERRED IN #I:IN% TO T#KE INTO #CCOGNT T=ECONTE.POR#NEOGS #ND SG1SEMGENT #CTS O T=E P#RTIESF=IC= #:SO C:E#R: S=OF T=#T T=E DID NOT INTEND T=E DEEDO #SSI%N.ENT TO =#VE EECT O D#TION IN P#.ENT&

V&

I T=E DEED O #SSI%N.ENT =#D T=E EECT O # D#TION INP#.ENT0 T=EN T=E I#C ERRED IN NOT RG:IN% T=#T PETITIONER=#S # RI%=T TO RET#IN T=E ENTIRE CREDIT #SSI%NED TO IT IN :IEGO P#.ENT O RESPONDENTHS O1:I%#TION INSTE#D O 1EIN%

REMGIRED TO RETGRN PORTION O T=E CREDIT F=IC= IS C:#I.EDTO 1E IN EJCESS O RESPONDENTHS O1:I%#TION&

VI&

#SSG.IN% T=#T PETITIONER IS :I#1:E TO .#KE # RETGRN O #PORTION O T=E CREDIT #SSI%NED0 T=E I#C ERRED IN #F#RDIN%LINTEREST #T T=E :E%#: R#TE O !4A P! A""#M RO. T=EI:IN% O T=E :E%#: O T=E CO.P:#INT&L

Fe find +erit in the instant petition&

The two vital issues presented to the Court for resolution are0 as followsul3 )!0 !'(2 constituted $acion en pago, as ruled 3 the appellate court0such that the oli,ation is totall3 e?tin,uished0 hence after said date0 no

1*


11/21

interest and service char,es could an3+ore e i+posed on privaterespondent0 so that petitioner was not le,all3 authoriBed to deduct thea+ount of P5!20552&*) as interest and service char,es on the unpaid andoverdue accounts of private respondent&

#nent the first issue0 we rule in the affir+ative&

Fe held in the case of =aalu3as Enterprises0 Inc&0 et& al& vs& >apson et& al&7!)( SCR# 4* !'(5"0 pro+ul,ated #u,ust 50 !'(580 that the L!5$da3 periodfor appealin, or for filin, a +otion for reconsideration cannot e e?tendedL&Suse;uentl30 the Court0 actin, on respondentHs +otion for reconsiderationin the sa+e entitled case 7!4- SCR# -2( !'(*"80 restated and clarified therule on this point for the ,uidance of the 1ench and 1ar 3 ,ivin, the ruleprospective application in its resolution dated .a3 )20 !'(*

#fter considerin, the ale ar,u+ents of counsels for petitioners andrespondents0 the Court resolved that the interest of @ustice would e etter

served if the rulin, in the ori,inal decision were applied prospectivel3 fro+the ti+e herein stated& The reason is that it would e unfair to deprive partiesof the ri,ht to appeal si+pl3 ecause the3 availed the+selves of a procedurewhich was not e?pressl3 prohiited or allowed 3 the law or the Rules& Onthe otherhand0 a +otion for new trial or reconsideration is not a pre$re;uisiteto an appeal0 a petition for review or a petition for review on certiorari,andsince the purpose of the a+end+ents aove referred to is to e?pedite thefinal disposition of cases0 a strict ut prospective application of the saidrulin, is in order& =ence0 for the ,uidance of the 1ench and 1ar0 the Courtrestates and clarifies the rules on this point0 as follows&

!&8 1e,innin, one +onth after the pro+ul,ation of this Resolution0 the ruleshall e strictl3 enforced that no +otion for e?tension of ti+e to file a +otion

for new trial or reconsideration +a3 e filed with the .etropolitan or.unicipal Trial Courts0 the Re,ional Trial Courts0 and the Inter+ediate#ppellate Court& Such a +otion +a3 e filed onl3 in cases pendin, with theSupre+e Court as the court of last resort0 which +a3 in its sound discretioneither ,rant or den3 the e?tension re;uested&

In Sin,h vs& I#C0 7!4( SCR# -99 !'(9"80 this Court appl3in, the aforesaidrulin, in the =aalu3as case0 held&

In other words0 there is one +onth ,race period fro+ the pro+ul,ation on.a3 )20 !'(*0 of the CourtHs Resolution in the clarificator3 =aalu3as case0or up to >une )20 !'(*0 within which the rule arrin, e?tensions of ti+e to file+otions for reconsideration is0 as 3et0 not strictl3 enforceale 71a3aca vs&

I#C0 %&R& No& 9(4-40 Septe+er !50 !'(*8&

Since petitioners herein filed their .otion for E?tension on #u,ust *0 !'(50 itwas still within the ,race period0 which e?pired on >une )20 !'(*0 and +a3still e allowed&

Si+ilarl30 when petitioner herein filed its .otion for E?tension of ti+e to file+otion for reconsideration on Septe+er -20 !'(50 the said +otion was filedwithin the one$+onth ,race period0 which e?pired on >une )20 !'(*0 and+a3 still e allowed& Conse;uentl30 the .otion for Reconsideration filed 3petitioner on Septe+er -*0 !'(50 was also filed on ti+e&

Fith respect to the second issue0 Fe rule that the Deed of #ssi,n+ent

e?ecuted 3 the parties on >ul3 )!0 !'(2 is not a dation in pa3+ent and didnot totall3 e?tin,uish respondentHs oli,ation as stated therein&

The then Inter+ediate #ppellate Court ruled that the three 7)8 re;uisites$acion en pago* are all present in the instant case0 and concluded that theDeed of #ssi,n+ent of >ul3 )!0 !'(2 7#nne? LCL of Partial Stipulation ofacts8 constitutes a dacion in pa3+ent provided for in #rticle !-45 ?? of theCivil Code which has the effect of e?tin,uishin, the oli,ation0 thussupportin, the clai+ of private respondent for the return of the a+ountretained 3 petitioner&

This Court0 spea/in, of the concept of dation in pa3+ent0 in the case of:opeB vs& Court of #ppeals 7!!4 SCR# *9!0 *(5 !'(-"80 a+on, others0statedune)20 !'(2 7-8 the applicale interest char,es on overdue accounts and 7)8the other avturo fuel liftin, and deliveries that assi,nor 7private respondent8+a3 fro+ ti+e to ti+e receive fro+ assi,nee 7Petitioner8& #s aptl3 ar,ued 3petitioner0 if it were the intention of the parties to li+it or fi? respondentHsoli,ation to P4029-&*(-&!) the3 should have so stated and there wouldhave een no need for the+ to ;ualif3 the state+ent of said a+ount with the

clause Las of >une )20 !'(2 plus an3 applicale interest char,es on overdueaccountL and the clause Land other avturo fuel liftin, and deliveries that#SSI%NOR +a3 fro+ ti+e to ti+e receive fro+ the #SSI%NEEL& The ter+sof the Deed of #ssi,n+ent ein, clear0 the literal +eanin, of its stipulationsshould control 7#rt& !)920 Civil Code8& In the construction of an instru+entwhere there are several provisions or particulars0 such a construction is0 ifpossile0 to e adopted as will ,ive effect to all 7Rule !)20 Sec& '0 Rules ofCourt8&

:i/ewise0 the then Inter+ediate #ppellate Court failed to ta/e intoconsideration the suse;uent acts of the parties which clearl3 show that the3did not intend the Deed of #ssi,n+ent to totall3 e?tin,uish the oli,ation 7!8 #fter the e?ecution of the Deed of #ssi,n+ent on >ul3 )!0 !'(20

petitioner continued to char,e respondent with interest on its overdueaccount up to >anuar3 )!0 !'(! 7#nne?es L=L0 LIL0 L>L and LKL of the PartialStipulation of acts8& This was pursuant to the Deed of #ssi,n+ent whichprovides for respondentHs oli,ation for Lapplicale interest char,es onoverdue account&L The char,es for interest were +ade ever3 +onth and notonce did respondent ;uestion or ta/e e?ception to the interest and 7-8 In itsletter of eruar3 !*0 !'(! 7#nne? L>L0 Partial Stipulation of acts80respondent addressed the followin, re;uest to petitioner

.oreover0 we would also li/e to re;uest for a consideration in the followin,

!& Interest char,es e li+ited up to Dece+er )!0 !'(2 onl3 and

-& Reduction of -A of !(A interest rate p&a&

Fe are hopin, for 3our usual /ind consideration on this +atter&

In order to @ud,e the intention of the contractin, parties0 theirconte+poraneous and suse;uent acts shall e principall3 considered 7#rt&!-5)0 Civil Code8& The fore,oin, suse;uent acts of the parties clearl3 showthat the3 did not intend the Deed of #ssi,n+ent to have the effect of totall3e?tin,uishin, the oli,ations of private respondent without pa3+ent of theapplicale interest char,es on the overdue account&

inall30 the pa3+ent of applicale interest char,es on overdue account0

separate fro+ the principal oli,ation of P4029-&*(-&!) was e?pressl3stipulated in the Deed of #ssi,n+ent& The law provides that Lif the detproduces interest0 pa3+ent of the principal shall not e dee+ed to haveeen +ade until the interests have een covered&L 7#rt& !-5)0 Civil Code8&

F=EREORE0 the decision of the then Inter+ediate #ppellate Court dated#u,ust -90 !'(5 is here3 SET #SIDE0 and the Nove+er 90 !'() decisionof the trial court is REINST#TED&

12


13/21

SO ORDERED&

Papa v. Valencia

Read the full text of PAPA vs. A. U. VALENCIA and CO. INC., G.R. No. 105188,

January 23, 1998.

FACTS: Petitioner Papa was the administrator of the Testate Estate of deceased

Angela M. Butte. A parcel of land owned by the latter was sold to respondent

Pearroyo through respondent Valencia herein. However, no title to the property has

been delivered to them by petitioner despite the fact that respondents paid in check

the amount of P40,000.00 as full payment of the purchase price of the lot in questionin addition to the earnest money that they paid to petitioner in the amount of

P5,000.00. Evidence was shown that receipts were issued by herein petitioner. A

complaint for specific performance was filed against petitioner for his failure to

comply with what is incumbent upon him that is the delivery to respondents of the

title to the subject property and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said

property, free from any liens and encumbrances. This complaint was granted by the

regional trial court. On appeal, petitioner alleged, among others, that the sale was

never consummated on the ground that the check paid by respondents was not

encashed invoking the provision of the Civil Code, which provides, in part, that

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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale was consummated.

RULING: The sale was consummated. Contrary to petitioner's contention, a

presumption exists that the check was encashed hence there is payment on the part

of respondents herein.

It is evident from the facts of the case that no proof was presented that petitioner did

not in fact encashed the check in question. On the contrary, evidence was shown that

petitioner received said check as well as the earnest money and issued receipts

therefor. Accordingly, the presumption is that the check was encashed since the

payment by check was not denied by herein petitioner. Granting that petitioner had

never encashed the check, his failure to do so for more than ten (10) years

undoubtedly resulted in the impairment of the check through his unreasonable and

unexplained delay. The Supreme Court held that, while it is true that the delivery of

a check produces the effect of payment only when it is cashed, the rule is otherwise

if the debtor is prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment. The

acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for

payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence,

it will be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it was

1'
http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr105188.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr105188.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr105188.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr105188.html


14/21

given. It has, likewise, been held that if no presentment is made at all, the drawer

cannot be held liable irrespective of loss or injury unless presentment is otherwise

excused. The payee of a check would be a creditor under this provision and if its

non-payment is caused by his negligence, payment will be deemed effected and the

obligation for which the check was given as conditional payment will be discharged.

R)p'&li o *+) +ilippin)(Con%r)(( o *+) +ilippin)(.etro .anila

$)n*+ Con%r)((

R)p'&li A* No. 818 'n) 11, 1::6Repealin, R# 5-'

AN AC$ R""ALING R"UBLIC AC$ NU#B"R"! FI@" UN!R"!$"N$>NIN" AS A#"N!"!, "N$I$L"! "AN ACT TO ASSURE THE

UNIFORM VAUE OF !HII!!INE COIN AN CURRENC#.

7e it enacte$ b4 the %enate an$ 8ouse of !epresentati5es of thePhiippines in Congress assembe$9une !20 !''94" in CI#C Case No& !4$'( in favor of petitioner=3dro Resources Contractors Corporation&

The facts are undisputed and are +atters of record&

In a co+petitive iddin, conducted 3 the National Irri,ation#d+inistration 7NI#8 so+eti+e in #u,ust !'9(0 =3dro ResourcesContractors Corporation 7=3dro8 was awarded Contract .PI$C$-5" involvin,the +ain civil wor/ of the .a,at River .ulti$Purpose Pro@ect& The contractprice for the wor/ was pe,,ed at P!04('0!4*049)&9- with the pesoco+ponent thereof a+ountin, to P!024!0((409**&'' and the GSco+ponent valued at *20*590''-&)9 at the e?chan,e rate of P9&)9)5 to thedollar or P4490)*!092*&9)&

On Nove+er *0 !'9(0 the parties si,ned #+end+ent No& !*" of thecontract where3 NI# a,reed to increase the forei,n currenc3 allocation fore;uip+ent financin, fro+ GS-(02220222&22 for the first and second 3earsof the contract to GS)(02220222&220 to e +ade availale in full durin, thefirst 3ear of the contract to enale the contractor to purchase the needede;uip+ent and spare parts0 as approved 3 NI#0 for the construction of thepro@ect& On #pril '0 !'(20 the parties entered into a .e+orandu+ of#,ree+ent9" 7.O#8 where3 the3 a,reed that =3dro +a3 directl3 avail ofthe forei,n currenc3 co+ponent of the contract for the sole purpose ofpurchasin, necessar3 spare parts and e;uip+ent for the pro@ect& This was

1%


16/21


17/21

and not 3 NI#6s authoriBed representative and 758 NI# did not en,a,e inforu+$shoppin,&

=3dro6s .otion for Reconsideration was denied in Resolution ofSepte+er -40 -22)&

=ence0 this petition&

#ddressin, first the issue of prescription0 the Court of #ppeals0 inrulin, that =3dro6s clai+ had prescried0 reasoned thusoint Co+putation ecause it /new that the #d+inistrator0 in fact0 had suchcapacit3&

Even assu+in, for the sa/e of ar,u+ent that the #d+inistrator hadno authorit3 to ind NI#0 the latter is alread3 estopped after repeatedl3representin, to =3dro that the #d+inistrator had such authorit3& #corporation +a3 e held in estoppel fro+ den3in, as a,ainst third persons

the authorit3 of its officers or a,ents who have een clothed 3 it withostensile or apparent authorit3&)4" Indeed Q

. . . The rule is of course settled that [a]lthough an officer or agent acts without, or

in excess of, his actual authority if he acts within the scope of an apparent authority

with which the corporation has clothed him by holding him out or permitting him to

appear as having such authority, the corporation is bound thereby in favor of a

person who deals with him in good faith in reliance on such apparent authority, as

where an officer is allowed to exercise a particular authority with respect to the

business, or a particular branch of it, continuously and publicly, for a considerable

time.. . .)5"

Thir$, NI# has clearl3 waived the prescriptive period when itcontinued to entertain =3dro6s clai+ re,ardin, new +atters raised 3 thelatter in its letters to NI# and then issuin, rulin,s thereon& In this re,ard0#rticle !!!- of the Civil Code provides that

Oblicon Cases (Arts 1240-1249)- FINALS

Documents

Transcript of Oblicon Cases (Arts 1240-1249)- FINALS