1. BEN v. O’BRIEN NOTES.

PETITIONER: LEUNG BEN

RESPONDENT: P. J. O'BRIEN ; JAMES A. OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, judges of
First Instance of the city of Manila

SUMMARY: Respondent lost to Ben from Gambling which the former wants to recover from
the latter.
DOCTRINE:

FACTS:
1. O’Brien wants to recover from Ben the sum of P15k for losing in a series of gambling,
banking, and percentage games conducted during the 2-3 months before the suit.
2. Ben wants to attach the property of the defendant because the latter was planning defraud
his creditors.
3. The sheriff attached the sum of P15k which had been deposited by the defendant with the
International Banking Corporation

ISSUE/RULLING:
WON the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming an obligation arising from
contract, express or implied? YES!

Upon the general principles, recognised both in the civil and common law, money lost in
gaming and voluntarily paid by the loser to the winner CANNOT, in the absence of statute, be
recovered in a civil action bu Act 1757 of the Philippine Commission, which defines and
penalises several forms of gambling, contains numerous provisions recognising the right to
recover money lost in gambling or in playing certain games. The original complaint filed in
the CFI was not clear as to the particular section of the said act under which the action was
brought, but was alleged that the money was lost at gambling, banking, and percentage game
in which the defendant was a banker.

It must therefore be assumed that the action was based upon the right of recovery given in Sec.
7 of the said act, which declared that an action may be brought against the banker by any
person losing money at a banking or percentage game.

It was observed that according to the Civil Code obligations are supposed to be derived either
from 1. law, 2. Contracts and quasi-contracts, 3. Illicit acts or commission, 4. Acts in which
some sort ob lame or negligence is rpresent. This enumeration of sources of obligation and the
obligation imposed by law are different types.

The obligations which in the code are indicated as quaasi-contracts, as well as those arising ex
lege, are in the common law system, merged into the category of obligations imposed by law,
and all are denominated implied contracts.

In the case at bar, the duty of O’Brien to refund the money which he won from Ben at
gaming was a duty imposed by statute. It therefore arose EX LEGE.

Money lost in gambling or by lottery, if can be recovered, can file an action of indebitatus
assumpsit for money had and received. The obligation to return the money is an IMPLIED
CONTRACT

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017
1
 2. SISON v. BALGOS or owners of the land could not themselves provide for its continuance.
G.R. No. 10305/ SEP 5, 1916/ARELLANO, CJ. /JTRINIDAD
NATURE Appeal DECISION.
PETITIONERS Tomas Sison and Leodegario Azarraga - plaintiffs For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed. It is hereby held that the
RESPONDENTS Alejandro Balgos-defendant property described in the complaint may be redeemed, and the defendant is ordered to deliver
the same to the plaintiffs on receipt of the sum of P141 deposited with the sheriff. No special
DOCTRINE. (1) That they relate to determined things or affairs, and that there be no finding is made as to costs.
administrator or representative of the owner who is charged with the management thereof; (2)
that it be foreign to all idea of express or tacit mandate on the part of the owner; (3), that the NOTES.
actor be inspired by the beneficent idea of averting losses and damages to the owner or to the Tomas Sison is also another guardian of the minors. He helped with the redemption.
interested party through the abandonment of the things that belong to him or of the business in
which he may be interested, that is, that the administrator shall not undertake the matter in the
hope of obtaining profit

FACTS.
• Isidro Azarraga was the guardian of minors Maria and Jesus.
• During his administration, as the result of a writ of execution issued by the CFI of Capiz,
the sheriff sold at public auction a parcel of land belonging to said minors containing 11
hectars.
• The period for redemption was to expire on May 17, 1911.
• Isidro died on May 2, the minors being left without a guardian.
• On the last day for redemption, Leodegario (plaintiff) an uncle of the minors deposited in
the sum of 141php in refund of the principal paid by the purchaser and interest thereon.
• The purchases refused and still refuses, hence the suit brought by the new guardian.
• Plaintiffs pray for the return of the property and a sum of 800php for indemnity.
• Defendant set up the defenses of
o That on may 17, leodegario was not yet administrator of the estate of the
decedent as he only took oath of office in that capacity on the 18th
o That he had no right to redeem the land in question, that he did not handle the
funds of the said minors and that he was not their legal representative
o No court order was presented in order for him to legally take charge of the
minors
o The minors had no capacity to contract with Azarraga
• Trial Court absolved the defendant.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON it was valid of plaintiff to claim redemption on behalf of the minors. – YES.

When the guardian of the minors died, Leodegario voluntarily undertook to carry out the
business for another and effected the redemption by depositing the price thereof. He
performed a quasi contract of negotorium gestio.

In effect, article 1888 of the Civil Code provides: "A person who voluntarily takes charge of
the agency or administration of the business of another, without authorization, is obliged to
continue to manage the same until the business and its incidents are terminated, or to notify the
interested person in order that the latter may come to substitute him in his management, should
he be in a condition to do so for himself."

That is what Leodegario did. He took steps to do what was most indispensable, namely, to
deposit the redemption price in order to prevent the action from prescribing, and as the minors

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017
2
 3. BENEDICTO V BOARD OF ADMINSITRATORS ISSUES & RATIO.
207 SCRA 659/ MARCH 31, 1992/ GRINO – AQUINO, J/ EVISITACION
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the WON the agreement to reorganize and reinstate the Boards of Directors of Broadcast City
decision of the Presidential Commission on Good Governance and other related media corporations extinguished the management of the business by the
PETITIONER Roberto S. Benedicto PCGG? YES
RESPONDENT Board of Administrators of Television Stations RPN, BBC, and IBC
FACTS. 1. PCGG may exercise only powers of administration over the property or business
1. Two consolidated cases for the reason that they involve sequestered television and sequestered or provisionally taken over much like a court appointed receiver, such as
to bring and defend actions in its own name, receive rents, collects debts due, pay
SUMMARY. A petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary outstanding debts and generally do such other acts and things as are necessary to
injunction and/or restraining order, was filed by Benedicto to prohibit the respondent fulfill its mission as conservator and administrator.
Board of Administrators from exercising management, operation, and control of three (3) 2. For the sequestered business, its essential role is that of conservator, caretaker,
television stations, namely; (1) the Inter-Continental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13), “watch dog” or overseer. It is not of manager, or innovator much less an owner.
(2) Radio Philippines Network (RPN-9), and (3) Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation 3. Thus, the PCGG is given the power and authority to provisionally take over in the
(BBC-2), collectively called "Broadcast City," and to compel the respondent Board to public interest or to prevent its disposal or dissipation the business enterprises of the
turn them over to their respective Boards of Directors. However, PCGG failed to do so. Marcos Administration. There are also incidental powers of exercising some
measure of control in the operation, running or management of the business itself is
DOCTRINE. In negotiorum gestio, the authority of the officious manager of a property present.
or business is extinguished when the owner demands the return of the same (Art. 2153) 4. However, it must be noted that the intrusion into management should be restricted
to accomplish the legislative will, which is to prevent the disposal or dissipation of
the business enterprise.
5. Due to the reorganization of the Board of Directors of Broadcast City
broadcast stations of Roberto S. Benedicto.
Companies, the authority of the Board of Administrators as “trustee and
2. Benedicto vs. Board – This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed officious manager” of the same corporations, has become functus officio.
by Benedicto in 1989 to prohibit the respondent BOAs from exercising
management, operation, and control of 3 television stations (IBC, RPN and BBC). *** Functus Officio: Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the
3. And to compel the respondent BOA to turn them over to their respective Board of purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer whose term has
Directors as provided in an Agreement between the petitioner and the PCGG. expired, and who has consequently no further official authority;
4. BACKGROUND: After the Feb Revolution in 1986, the properties, assets, and
business of Broadcast City were abandoned, leaving no one to look after them. 6. In negotiorum gestio, the authority of the officious manager of a property or
When the PCGG was created in Feb 1986, its chairman Jovito Salonga requested business is extinguished when the owner demands the return of the same (Art. 2153)
the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Information, in the interest of 7. Hence, with the reorganization of the respective Boards of Directors of the
national security to sequester Broadcast City, pending clarification of its Broadcast City Companies, where PCGG controls 2/3 of the board membership, the
uncertain financial condition, as well as its llegal and beneficial ownership. Board of Administrators has become excessive. The reason for its existence has
5. In compliance with PCGG, MND requested the MOI to immediately undertake the ceased.
management and admin of the sequestered facilities.
6. April 1986, Pres. Corazon Aquino issued EO 11, creating a BOA to manage and DECISION
operate the business and affairs of Broadcast City. EO 11 provided that the BOA DECISION Petition for prohibition and mandamus in G.R. No. 87710 is granted. The
shall function in all respects like a board of directors of a corporation under the respondent Board of Administrators is ordered to cease and desist from further exercising
Corp Code. management, operation and control of Broadcast City and is hereby directed to surrender the
7. MOI then appointed members of BOA. management, operation and control of Broadcast City to the reorganized Board of Directors of
8. The petitioner filed in the SC an action against PCGG to annul the sequestration, each of the Broadcast City television stations.
and to recover the management of Broadcast City. Such case is pending in the
Sandiganbayan NOTES Benedicto WON!
9. In December 1986, petitioner and the PCGG allegedly entered into an agreement 1. In addition, the fact that Broadcast City is not a purely commercial venture but a
to reorganize and reinstate the BOD (composed of people different from the BOAs business enterprise covered by the freedom of press makes such management of
appointed by EO 11) of RPN, IBC and BBC and other related media corporations. PCGG unlawful. Based on the doctrine of Liwayway Publishing, Inc et al v PCGG,
Said BODs would exercise all powers of administration and management of the the government through PCGG may not lawfully intervene and participate in the
sequestered companies. management and operations of a private mass media to maintain its freedom and
10. However, respondent BOAs refused to relinquish the management, operation, and independence.
control of Broadcast City to the reorganized BODs. 2. This is a consolidated case, however, for the only the first case is with regards to the
topic of Quasi Contracts, under Negotiorum Gestio.

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017 3
 4. VELEZ v. BALZARZA & MABILIN the) lands and collected the fruits thereof. The creditor having enjoyed the beneficial use of the
G.R. 48389/July 27, 1942/Bocobo, J./NGARCIA lands delivered as security of the loan, it appears to have been the intention of the parties that
NATURE: Appeal the creditor should be compensated thereby. Therefore, in none of the contracts offered in
Plaintiff Appellant: Cleofe Velez evidence is there any promise made by defendants to pay rents.
Defendant Appellee: Maximo Balrarza & Flavia Mabilin
Neither are the payments considered as interests because no interest is due unless it is
expressly stipulated (It was not stipulated). If, however, the defendants choose to pay interests,
DOCTRINE. – Solutio Indebiti they could still not recover, as per Art. 1756 of the CC., which provides, “The borrower who
When something is received when there is no right to collect, and which by mistake has been has paid interests without being stipulated, cannot recover them nor apply them to the
unduly delivered, the obligation to return it arises. principal.”

Therefore, the trial court was right in finding that these payments were APPLIED TO
FACTS. THE PRINCIPAL.
1. In 1937, plaintiff in an amended complaint prayed for the return of certain parcels
of land which she alleged had been sold by defendants to plaintiff’s deceased >> The liability of the plaintiff to return the excess payments is in keeping with the Civil Code
husband, with right of repurchase. which provides that, “when something is received when there is no right to collect, and
2. She further alleged that defendants had remained in possession of said land under a which by mistake has been unduly delivered, the obligation to return it arises.” The two
contract of lease, but that for over two years, defendants had not paid the agreed requisites are present: (1) there is no right to collect these excess sums; and (2) the amounts
rentals. have been paid through mistake by defendants. Such mistake is shown by the fact that the
3. In their answer, defendants alleged that the real agreement was a loan secured by parties in their contracts never intended that either rents or interest should be paid, and
a mortgage of those lands; and that whereas the amount borrowed was only by the further fact that when these payments were made, they were intended by the defendants
P2,400, defendants had however already paid P4,420.88. Defendants therefore to be applied to the principal, but they overpaid the amounts loaned to them.
prayed for the return of the excess, or P2,029.88.
4. At the trial, the parties agreed to the ff stipulation of facts: This legal provision, which determines the quasi-contract of solution indebiti, is one off the
a. That the real question involved is the collection of a debt; concrete manifestations of the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the
b. That plaintiff admits defendants have made the payments according to expense of another.
the receipts; and that
c. The lands described have been given as a security for the payment of DECISION.
the obligation of the defendants. Trial Court Judgment AFFIRMED. DEFENDANTS WON.
5. The trial court found that the total amount loaned on various dates by the deceased
husband of the plaintif was P3,067 and that the defendants had already paid NOTES.
P4,429.88 (P3,997.25 received by deceased husband, P432.63 received by plaintiff).
6. Furthermore, these payments were not made by way of interests or rents, but as
payment.
7. The defendants overpaid the amount of P1,362.88.
8. TC ordered plaintiff to return to the defendants the amount of P432.63 (As to the
amount received by deceased husband not having been presented before the
committee on appraisal and claims during estate administration, defendants are not
entitled to its return.)

ISSUE/S and RULING.

W/N Defendants are entitled to the return of the excess amount. – YES

1. Payment for RENTS or INTERESTS? - Neither

The documents presented indicate that defendants obtained loans from the plaintiff and that
the obligation was secured by the mortgage of the seven parcels of land. These transactions
being loans, according to the stipulation of facts, the question is whether the payments were
intended to be applied to the principal, as contended by defendants, or were considered as
either rents or interests, upon the theory advanced by the plaintiff.

The payments could not have been intended as rents (as alleged by plaintiff) because in
accordance with a clause in the contract, deceased husband took possession of the (titles of

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017 4
 5. CITY OF CEBU v. PICCIO virtue of a writ of execution lawfully issued; and that the payment was not made through
GR Nos. L-13012& L-14876/DEC 31, 1960/PAREDES, J./COMPENSATION/CSY mistake.
NATURE Original Action in the SC – Certiorari & Appeal from CFI
PETITIONER The City of Cebu The mandamus case becomes unimportant, as it is immaterial. It is true that in the mandamus
DEFENDANT Judge Edmund Piccio, CFI of Cebu, and Anacleto Caballero case, only the City Mayor, the municipal Board, the City Treasurer and the City Auditor, of
PLAINTIFF The City of Cebu Cebu City were included in the order of the execution of the judgment, but we have declared
DEFENDANT Anacleto Caballero that a municipal corporation, whether included or not in the complaint for the recovery of
back salaries due to wrongful removal from office, is liable.
SUMMARY. Caballero was illegally dismissed and was asking for reinstatement and the
DECISION.
payment of back wages. Judge Piccio allowed the same, however the City of Cebu contested
the fact stating that it is unlawful to do such. Caballero was given the sum, which the City of
In view hereof, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merits and the order of
Cebu said was unjust enrichment on his part. The SC ruled that it is allowed.
dismissal of the complaint, object of the appeal, is affirmed. Costs is the taxed against the
DOCTRINE. The indispensable requisites of solutio indebiti are (a) that he who paid was not
under obligation to do so; and (b) that the payment was made by reason of an essential mistake petitioners and the appellant City of Cebu, in both instances and in both cases. So ordered.
of fact.
RESPONDENT & DEFENDANT JUDGE PICCIO AND ANACLETO CABALLERO
WON.

FACTS. NOTES.
1. Anacleto Caballero filed with the CFI of Cebu a petition for Mandamus against the City
Mayor, the Municipal Board, the City Treasurer and the City Auditor, and all of Cebu
City for the reinstatement to his former position of Caretaker, Operation of Cemeteries
and for the payment of his back salaries.
2. Judge Piccio rendered a decision in favor of Caballero, reinstating him to his former
position and for the payment of his back wages.
3. The Municipal Board issued a resolution for the payment of his back salaries (P3, 224),
pursuant to the writ of execution filed by Caballero.
4. Caballero was not reinstated thus, Judge Piccio issued an order directing the Municipal
Board to do such.
5. The Municipal Board did not comply with the order, stating that Caballero failed to file a
motion including the City of Cebu as a party, where if they do comply with the order, it
would be illegal and unwarranted.
6. [In the Mandamus proceedings] The City of Cebu was claiming that the payment of the
sum (P3, 224) was wrongful and illegal since it was not a party to the case and filed for
damages worth P25k.
7. A decision from the CFI of Cebu by Judge Rodriguez was made in favor of the
defendants and Cebu City appealed, stating that the Court overlooked making the City of
Cebu a party to the case and that it could not ignore the Charter of the City of Cebu
stating such fact.

ISSUES & RATIO.

WON the complaint was correctly dismissed – YES.

Considering that the indispensable requisites of this juridical relation, known as solutio
indebiti, are (a) that he who paid was not under obligation to do so; and (b) that the payment
was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact, we are of the belief that the complaint was
correctly dismissed.

It is fully established that Caballero had the perfect right to demand for the payment of his
back salaries during his illegal dismissal, that the sum of P3,224.00 was paid to Caballero by

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017 5
 6. ANDRES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORP 16. CA: Respondent won

PETIONER: DOMETILA M. ANDRES, doing business under the name and style “IRENE’S ISSUE/RULING:
WEARING APPAREL, WON the respondent has the right to recover the 2nd $10k remittance?
RESPONDENT: MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION and YES!
COURT OF APPEALS Art.2154.If something received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly
delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.
SUMMARY: FACETS remitted to Irene. FACETS asked FNSB to transfer $10k to Petitioner For this article to apply the following requisites must concur: “(1) that he who paid was not
through PNB. FNSB instructed Hanover to transfer its facilities and to charge the amount to under obligation to do so; and, (2) that payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of
FNSB with Hanover. upon transfer, the payee indicated was wrong (#5 of facts) PNB sent 2 fact
telex to correct the mistake. 2 remittance was made and the 2nd remittance was a mistake. SC
said to return under 2154. Petitioner, although named as the payee was not privy to the contract of remittance of dollars.
DOCTRINE: Solutio Indebiti; For the rule on solutio indebiti to apply, it is required that he Neither was private respondent a party to the contract of sale between petitioner and FACETS.
who paid was under no obligation to do so and that payment was made by reason of an There being no contractual relation between them, petitioner has no right to apply the second
essential mistake of fact $10,000.00 remittance delivered by mistake by private respondent to the outstanding account
of FACETS.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, using the business name “Irene’s Wearing Apparel,” was engaged in the
The Court holds that the finding by the Court of Appeals that the second $10,000.00
manufacture of ladies garments, children’s wear, men’s apparel and linens for local and
remittance was made by mistake, being based on substantial evidence, is final and conclusive
foreign buyers. Among its foreign buyers was Facets Funwear, Inc. (FACETS) of the US.
2. FACETS from time to time remitted certain amounts of money to petitioner in payment for
the items it had purchased. NOTES.
3. August 1980: FACETS instructed the First National State Bank of New Jersey, Newark, Petitioner was saying that the one who was in fault should bear the the loss but in this case, it
New Jersey, U.S.A. (FNSB) to transfer $10k to petitioner via Philippine National Bank, is not possible because there is a provision of law applicable in this case which is 2154.
Sta. Cruz, Branch, Manila (PNB) Petitioner also said that the 2nd remittance was made 510 days had elapsed but the case was
4. Acting on said instruction, FNSB instructed private respondent Manufacturers Hanover filed within the 6 year prescriptive period.
and Trust Corporation to effect the abovementioned transfer through its facilities and to
charge the amount to the account of FNSB with private respondent.
5. Although private respondent was able to send a telex to PNB to pay petitioner $10k
through the Pilipinas Bank, where petitioner had an account, the payment was not effected
immediately because the payee designated in the telex was only “Wearing Apparel.”
6. Upon query of PNB, respondent sent PNB another telex stating that the payment was to
be made to “Irene’s Wearing Apparel”
7. August 28, 1980: Petitioner received the remittance of $10k through draft of PNB
8. after learning about the delay in the remittance of the money to petitioner, FACETS
informed FNSB about the situation.
9. On September 8, 1980, unaware that petitioner had already received the remittance,
FACETS informed private respondent about the delay and at the same time amended
its instruction by asking it to effect the payment through the Philippine Commercial
and Industrial Bank (PCIB) instead of PNB.
10. Private respondent, which was also unaware that petitioner had already received the
remittance of $10k from PNB instructed the PCIB to pay $10k to petitioner
11. September 11, 1980, petitioner received a second $10kremittance
12. Respondent debited the account of FNSB for the second $10k remittance effected
through PCIB.
13. FNSB discovered that private respondent had made a duplication of the remittance, it
asked for a recredit of its account in the amount of $10k Private respondent complied
with the request.
14. Respondent asked the Petitioner to return the 2nd remittance of $10k but the latter
refused.
15. RTC: Petitioner won, 2154 was inapplicable bec the 2nd remittance was not by mistake
but by negligence

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017 6
 7. BPI v. SARMIENTO
G.R. No. 146021/ MAR 10, 2006/AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. /JTRINIDAD DECISION.
NATURE Appeal DENIED.
PETITIONERS Bank of the Philippine Islands
RESPONDENTS Elizabeth Sarmiento NOTES.
CA found that Kimseng denied giving her the instruction of not going to work and he had no
DOCTRINE. There is solutio indebiti where (1) payment is made when there exists no authority to give the order. BUT petitioner failed to show why its España Branch Manager
binding relation between the payor who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the allowed respondent to be absent or not to do anything during that period if indeed there was no
payment, and (2) the payment is made through mistake and not through liberality or some such instruction from AVP Kimseng for her not to report for work. It bears stressing that as an
other cause. Assistant Branch Manager, respondent has some official duties to perform pertaining to the
internal operation of petitioner’s branch and yet her Branch Manager allowed her to be absent
FACTS. for such a long period of time without calling her attention on such absences. The only
• Respondent Sarmineto ws the Asst. Manager of the Petitioners España branch. plausible explanation is that, as declared by respondent, which remained unrebutted, she had
• In 1987 the branch was investigated for several anomalous transactions involving time relayed to her Branch Manager the verbal instruction of AVP Kimseng for her not to report for
deposits. work while the investigation was ongoing. If indeed there was no such instruction, the Branch
• Among the suspects was respondent. Manager could have immediately called respondent’s attention regarding her absences and that
• From Oct 10 1987 to June 30 1988, respondent did not regularly report for work but went to she should have been required to perform her official duties inside the branch office. And if
her office in the bank only once in a while. she continued to be absent, she could have been sanctioned or given the corresponding
• She received her fully salary for the said period that totals to Php 116k. memorandum. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that such absences, if unauthorized,
were reported by the Branch Manager to higher authorities of petitioner.
• Subsequently, she received a demand from the bank to return said amount because it was
mistakenly paid to her.
• She refused, and in her defense she was told by the VP of the audit dept to stop working
while the investigation was on going, to obviously prevent her from tampering with
evidence.
• RTC dimissed the complaint for failure of petitioner to establish its case by preponderance
of evidence. It found that the principle of solution indebiti is untenable, because since
the respondent was petitioners Asst. Manager, she was a managerial employee who
was not under obligation to punch in her card in the bund clock; that she was allowed
to visit the business establishments of the banks several clients thus she could not be
seen reporting for work which was not a conclusive proof that she was not rendering
service to her employer.
• CA: affirmed.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON BPI may recover the said amount – NO.

Petitioner based on the principle of solution indebiti.

There is solutio indebiti where (1) payment is made when there exists no binding relation
between the payor who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment, and
(2) the payment is made through mistake and not through liberality or some other cause.

Both elements are lacking in the present case. The head of the Branch stated that respondent
was only terminated from service on August 28, 1998. Respondent was not suspended from
office. Consequently, during the period in question, there still existed an employer-
employee relationship between petitioner and respondent which entitled respondent to
the payment of her salary during the said period. Thus, there can be no mistaken
payment in this case. Moreover, it has been show that the payment of respondent’s salary
was with the knowledge and approval of respondent’s superior officers.

OBLICON G06 / ATTY. AMPIL / NGARCIA. CSY. GVALERA. JTRINIDAD. EVISITACION / 2017 7