Plano lingüístico

vs.

THE IMMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ZOILO AGUINALDO, NATIVIDAD FAJARDO and SILVINO PASTRANA

G.R. No. L-69569 June 30, 1988

FACTS: In the early 1980, Natividad Fajardo secured from International Corp. Bank’s (ICB) predecessors-in-interest the then Investment and Underwriting Corp. of the Philippines and Atrium Capital Corp., a loan in the amount of P50M, secured by a real estate mortgage of her properties in Manila and Bulacan.

Only P20M was approved for release. The same amount was applied to pay her other obligations to ICB - bank charges and fees. Thus, it is claimed by Fajardo that she did not receive anything from the approved loan.

On September 11, 1980, Fajardo made a money market placement with Atrium in the amount of P1M.

Meanwhile, Fajardo allegedly failed to pay her mortgaged indebtedness to the bank so that the latter refused to pay the proceeds of the money market placement on maturity but applied the amount instead to the deficiency in the proceeds of the auction sale of the mortgaged properties. As Atrium was the sole bidder, the properties were sold in its favor for only P20M. ICB claims that Fajardo, even after deducting this amount, is still indebted to it of P6.81M.

Fajardo filed a complaint for annulment of the sheriff’s sale of her properties, and prayed for the release of P30M loan, and recovery of P1M money market investment.

ICB answered that it had the right to set off Fajardo’s money market claim.

The trial court ruled for Fajardo, ordering ICB to deliver to her the amount covered by the money market investment (P1,046,253.77).

CA affirmed this ruling, holding that legal compensation cannot take place in this case since the question of whether Fajardo was indebted to ICB is vigorously disputed.

Trial court then issued a writ of execution to implement its Order and a levy was made on ICB’s personal properties consisting of 20 motor vehicles; and ordered the four branches of ICB to pay P250K each to Fajardo.

Hence, ICB filed for a petition for review on certiorari with prayer for a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE: WON there can be legal compensation for the proceeds of the money market placement and deficiency from the foreclosure of the mortgage?

HELD: No. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. (Art. 1278, Civil Code).

"When all the requisites mentioned in Art. 1279 of the Civil Code are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, even without the consent or knowledge of the debtors." (Art. 1290, Civil Code). Article 1279 of the Civil Code requires among others, that in order that legal compensation shall take place, "the two debts be due" and "they be liquidated and demandable." Compensation is not proper where the claim of the person asserting the set-off against the other is not clear nor liquidated;

compensation cannot extend to unliquidated, disputed claim arising from breach of contract.

There can be no doubt that petitioner is indebted to private respondent in the amount of P1,062,063.83 representing the proceeds of her money market investment. This is admitted. But whether private respondent is indebted to petitioner in the amount of P6.81 million representing the deficiency balance after the foreclosure of the mortgage

executed to secure the loan extended to her, is vigorously disputed. This circumstance prevents legal compensation from taking place.

It must be noted that Civil Case No. 83-19717 is still pending consideration at the RTC Manila, for annulment of Sheriffs sale on extra-judicial foreclosure of private respondent's property from which the alleged deficiency arose. Therefore, the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and petitioner's claim for deficiency are still in question, so much so that it is evident, that the requirement of Article 1279 that the debts must be liquidated and demandable has not yet been met. For this reason, legal compensation cannot take place under Article 1290 of the Civil Code.

Art. 1280. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, the guarantor may set up compensation as regards what the creditor may owe the principal debtor. (1197)

Art. 1284. When one or both debts are rescissible or voidable, they may be compensated against each other before they are judicially rescinded or avoided. (n)

Art. 1285. The debtor who has consented to the assignment of rights made by a creditor in favor of a third person, cannot set up against the assignee the compensation which would pertain to him against the assignor, unless the assignor was notified by the debtor at the time he gave his consent, that he reserved his right to the compensation.

If the creditor communicated the cession to him but the debtor did not consent thereto, the latter may set up the compensation of debts previous to the cession, but not of subsequent ones.

If the assignment is made without the knowledge of the debtor, he may set up the compensation of all credits prior to the same and also later ones until he had knowledge of the assignment. (1198a)

Debtor may still invoke compensation even after assignment, if:

1. Had no knowledge of or did not consent to the assignment; or 2. If with knowledge or consent, but reserved his right to the

compensation.

ILLUSTRATION: A borrowed money from B for P100,000 payable on July 31, 2016. In turn, B is indebted to A on the following amounts:



P40k due on February 1, 2016;



P30k due on August 15, 2016;



P15l due on Oct. 2, 3016

On August 5, 2016 B assigned his credit to X.

a. How much can X demand from A on June 5, 2016? None. The debt is not yet due.

b. If demand was made on Aug. 5, 2015, how much can X collect from A?

It depends:

1. If A had knowledge of the assignment and gave his consent thereto, and made no reservation as to his right to set-up compensation: P100k

2. If he made a reservation: P60k, the debt that became due on Feb. 1, 2016 is compensated.

3. If he had knowledge but did not give his consent: P60k, the debt that became due before the assignment is compensated.

4. If he had no knowledge: P60k.

c. If demand was made on September 30, 2016, how much can X collect from A?

1. If A had knowledge of the assignment and gave his consent thereto, and made no reservation as to his right to set-up compensation: P100k

2. If he made reservation: P60k, he can only set-up those debts which were due before the assignment but not later ones.

3. If he had knowledge but did not give his consent: similar to (2).

4. If he had no knowledge: he may set up compensation as to the P40k and the P30k: thus, P30k only as provided under the last par. of Art. 1285. Thus, he may set-up compensation against the debts the assignor had prior to the assignment and subsequent ones thereto until he had knowledge.

Art. 1286. Compensation takes place by operation of law, even though the debts may be payable at different places, but there shall be an indemnity for expenses of exchange or transportation to the place of payment. (1199a)

Art. 1287. Compensation shall not be proper when one of the debts arises from a depositum or from the obligations of a depositary or of a bailee in commodatum.

Neither can compensation be set up against a creditor who has a claim for support due by gratuitous title, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 301. (1200a)

Art. 1288. Neither shall there be compensation if one of the debts consists in civil liability arising from a penal offense. (n)

When compensation may not be proper:

1. Depositum – as to the depositary;

2. Bail – as to the bailee;

3. Support – as to the one giving support, EXCEPT: support in arrears and those contractual in nature;

4. Civil liability arising from a penal offense.

BAR QUESTION: X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of P1,000,000.00, incurs a loan obligation with the said Bank in the sum of P800,000.00 which has become due. When X tries to withdraw his deposit, Y Bank allows only P200,000.00 to be withdrawn, less service charges, claiming that compensation has extinguished its obligation under the savings account to the concurrent amount of X’s debt. X contends that compensation is improper when one of the debts, as here, arises from a contract of deposit. Assuming that the promissory note signed by X to evidence the loan does not provide for compensation between said loan and his savings deposit, who is correct? (3%)

ANSWER: By opening a deposit, they did not enter a contract of deposit.

Deposits in bank are simple loans. The bank is correct.

MODIFIED: instead of opening a savings account, X instead delivered a sum of money with the bank for safekeeping in a safety deposit box. If the bank would invoke compensation for the debt due, can the Bank do that?

ANSWER: No. this time, one of the debts pertain to an obligation arising from a depositum. SC would consider this a special kind of deposit, therefore, 1287 is applicable, compensation would not be proper since one of the contract is a depositum.

What if the Bank is the one demanding and X says that the Bank get it from the deposit, is it proper? Yes. 1287 – only legal compensation is not allowed. Depositor can invoke compensation. The law protects the depositor, that upon demand, the depositary should deliver. As such, the Bank cannot refuse compensation.

CASE:

The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Thus, legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code may take place "when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANNABELLE A. SALAZAR, and JULIO R.

TEMPLONUEVO, Respondents

G.R. No. 136202 January 25, 2007

FACTS: AA Salazar Construction and Engineering Services filed an action for a sum of money with damages against herein petitioner Bank, which was later on amended to substitute Anabelle Salazar as the real party in interest, where respondent Salazar prays for the recovery of P267,707.70 debited by petitioner Bank from her account.

In its Answer, BPI alleged hat Julio Templonuevo, 3^rd party defendant and herein private respondent, demanded from the former payment in the said amount representing the aggregate of 3 checks which were allegedly payable to him but which were deposited with the account of Salazar without his knowledge and corresponding endorsement.

BPI froze Account No. 0201-0588-48 of AA Salazar Construction and Engineering Services, instead of Account No. 0203-1187-67 where the checks were deposited, since the latter account was alredy closed by respondent Salazar or had an insufficient balance.

As it appeared that Salazar was not entitled to the funds represented by the checks, BPI decided to debit the amount from Salazar’s account (0201-0588-48) and the same was paid to Templonuevo by means of a cashier’s check.

In his answer, Templonuevo admitted the payment to him by BPI and argued that the said payment was to correct the malicious deposit made by private respondent Salazar to her private account.

The RTC rendered a decision against petitioner and ordered to pay the amount debited and damages.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court holding that Salazar and Templonuevo had previously agreed that the checks payable to JRT Construction and Trading actually belonged to Salazar and would be deposited to her account, with petitioner acquiescing to the arrangement.

ISSUE: WON petitioner Bank had the right to set-off Salazar’s account for the said checks?

HELD: Yes. The right of set-off was explained in Associated Bank v. Tan:

A bank generally has a right of set-off over the deposits therein for the payment of any withdrawals on the part of a depositor. The right of a collecting bank to debit a client's account for the value of a dishonored check that has previously been credited has fairly been established by jurisprudence. To begin with, Article 1980 of the Civil Code provides that "[f]ixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan."

Hence, the relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Thus, legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code may take place "when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present," as follows:

(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other;

(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;

(3) That the two debts be due;

(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

ISSUE2: WON petitioner Bank acted properly as to its right of set-off?

HELD: No. While, however, it is conceded that petitioner had the right of set-off over the amount it paid to Templonuevo against the deposit of Salazar, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different matter. As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary

nature of their relationship. In this regard, petitioner was clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor.

To begin with, the irregularity appeared plainly on the face of the checks.

Despite the obvious lack of indorsement thereon, petitioner permitted the encashment of these checks three times on three separate occasions. This negates petitioner’s claim that it merely made a mistake in crediting the value of the checks to Salazar’s account and instead bolsters the conclusion of the CA that petitioner recognized Salazar’s claim of ownership of checks and acted deliberately in paying the same, contrary to ordinary banking policy and practice. It must be emphasized that the law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct. The taking and collection of a check without the proper indorsement amount to a conversion of the check by the bank.

More importantly, however, solely upon the prompting of Templonuevo, and with full knowledge of the brewing dispute between Salazar and Templonuevo, petitioner debited the account held in the name of the sole proprietorship of Salazar without even serving due notice upon her. This ran contrary to petitioner’s assurances to private respondent Salazar that the account would remain untouched, pending the resolution of the controversy between her and Templonuevo.

The records further bear out the fact that respondent Salazar had issued several checks drawn against the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services prior to any notice of deduction being served. The CA sustained private respondent Salazar’s claim of damages in this regard:

The act of the bank in freezing and later debiting the amount of P267,692.50 from the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services caused plaintiff-appellee great damage and prejudice particularly when she had already issued checks drawn against the said account. As can be expected, the said checks bounced. To prove this, plaintiff-appellee presented as exhibits photocopies of checks dated September 8, 1991, October 28, 1991, and November 14, 1991 (Exhibits

"D", "E" and "F" respectively)

These checks, it must be emphasized, were subsequently dishonored, thereby causing private respondent Salazar undue embarrassment and inflicting damage to her standing in the business community. Under the circumstances, she was clearly not given the opportunity to protect her interest when petitioner unilaterally withdrew the above amount from her account without informing her that it had already done so.

For the above reasons, the Court finds no reason to disturb the award of damages granted by the CA against petitioner. This whole incident would have been avoided had petitioner adhered to the standard of diligence expected of one engaged in the banking business. A depositor has the right to recover reasonable moral damages even if the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, if the former suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation. Moral damages are not meant to enrich a complainant at the expense of defendant. It is only intended to alleviate the moral suffering she has undergone. The award of exemplary damages is justified, on the other hand, when the acts of the bank are attended by malice, bad faith or gross negligence. The award of reasonable attorney’s fees is proper where exemplary damages are awarded. It is proper where depositors are compelled to litigate to protect their interest.

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 3, 1998 and Resolution dated April 3, 1998 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42241 are MODIFIED insofar as it ordered petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to return the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven and 70/100 Pesos (P267,707.70) to respondent Annabelle A. Salazar, which portion is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In all other respects, the same are AFFIRMED.

Art. 1289. If a person should have against him several debts which are susceptible of compensation, the rules on the application of payments shall apply to the order of the compensation. (1201)

Art. 1290. When all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation. (1202a)

Art. 1243. Payment made to the creditor by the debtor after the latter has been judicially ordered to retain the debt shall not be valid. (1165)

Art. 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1219.

The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them. (1143)

6. Novation

Dual Function: extinguishes the obligation and creates a new one.

Requisites:

1. Previous valid obligation

Art. 1298. The novation is void if the original obligation was void, except when annulment may be claimed only by the debtor or when ratification validates acts which are voidable. (1208a)

2. Agreement of all parties to a new contract 3. Extinguishment of old obligation 4. Validity of the new obligation

Art. 1297. If the new obligation is void, the original one shall subsist, unless the parties intended that the former relation should be extinguished in any event. (n)

Relevance of determining existence of novation: examples:

1. Vitiation of consent – in the previous obligation, is not carried to the

1. Vitiation of consent – in the previous obligation, is not carried to the

In document Terminología del fútbol y diccionarios: (página 81-86)