Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Yam vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 104726
Petitioners: Victor Yam & Yek Sun Lent (Philippine Printing Works)
Respondents: CA and Manphil Investment Corporation
Ponente: Mendoza, J.

Feb. 11, 1999

CONDONATION/REMISSION OF DEBT
Facts:
-

May 10, 1979: The parties (petitioner and private respondent) entered into a Loan Agreement
with Assumption of Solidary Liabilitythe first Industrial Guarantee and Loan Fund (IGLF)
between the two.
o P500,000.00 loan
o 12% annual interest
o 2% monthly penalty
o 1 % monthly service charge
o 10% attorneys fees
o Secured by a chattel mortgage on the printing machinery in petitioners establishment.
Second IGLF (basically the same as the first one, except):
o P300,000.00 loan
o 14% annual interest
o 1% per annum service charge
April 2, 1985: petitioners had paid their first loan (P500,000.00)
November 4, 1985: PR was placed under receivership by the Central Bank:
o Ricardo Lirioreceiver
o Cristina Destajoin-house examiner
May 17, 1986: Pet made a partial payment of P50,000.00 on the second loan.
June 18, 1986: Pet wrote a letter to PR proposing to settle their obligations, which was answered
by the PR on July 2 with a counter-offer that it would reduce the penalty charges (up to
P140,000.00) provided petitioners pay their obligations on or before July 30, 1986.
July 31, 1986: Pet total liability amounted to P727,001.35.
o However, Pet sent a check to PR amounting only to P410,854.47 (Pilipinas Bank Check),
with a notation at the back stating full payment of IGLF Loan
o P410,854.47 = principal + (interest-P50,000.00 partial payment)
Because of this, PR sent demand letters seeking payment of the balance of P266,146.88.
o Pet did not answer, so PR then filed a case in the RTC Manila for the collection of the
sum plus interests, penalties and service charges or, in the alternative, the foreclosure of
the machineries.
Pet defense: sometime after receiving the counter-offer letter, Petitioner Yam (and wife ) met with
Carlos Sobrepenas, president of the PR corporation.
o The latter allegedly agreed to waive the penalties and service charges provided pet paid
the principal and interest (less the P50,000.00 partial payment). This was then the reason
why there was such notation at the back of the check.
April 30, 1990: RTC decision: in favor of PRpet ordered to pay the loan balance of
P266,146.88 plus other charges, failing in which the said machineries shall be foreclosed.
Court of Appeals: affirmed in toto the decision of the Lower Court.

Issues/Held:

WoN petitioners are liable for the payment of the penalties and service charges on their loanYES
-

Art. 1270, par. 2 of the CC express condonation must comply with the forms of donation.
o Art. 748, par.3 donation and acceptance of a movable, the value of which exceeds
P5000.00, must be made in writing, otherwise the same shall be void.
o Art. 417, par.1 obligations, actually referring to credits, are considered movable
property
o With these laws in mind, and given the fact that said agreement to condone the other
charges was not reduced in writing, said agreement is void.
Pet contention that the notation at the back is an evidence of the oral agreement is untenable.
o The notation merely states the petitioners intention in making the payment. In no way Is
it binding upon PR.
o It would have been a different story, however, if such was written in a receipt made by
PR, as the same would have been an admission against interest. If what pet said was true,
then they should have asked for a cert of full payment from PR!
Cristina Destajos countersign is not a compelling evidence either.
o Destajo claimed that when she signed the voucher, she failed to note the notation written
at the back.
o In any event, such countersigning only signifies acknowledgment of receipt of the
payment. Destajo does not have any authority to condone indebtedness, as her duties are
limited only to issuing official receipts, preparing check vouchers and documentation.
Also, said agreement was entered into sometime in July 1986. It should be noted, however, that
PR was placed under receivership by the Central Bank on November 4, 1985.
o As held in Villanueva v. CA, the appointment of receiver operates to suspend the
authority of a [corporation]over its property and effects, such authority being reposed
in the receiver. Thus, Sobrepenas had no authority to condone the debt.
o By Pets own testimony it is proved that they indeed knew of such status of PR, so they
cannot invoke good faith in this case.

Judgment Affirmed.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai