[G.R. No. 156846. 156846. February 23, 2004] 2004] TEDDY G. PABGA!", petition PABGA!", petitioner P. "A$!%&AN!, respondent. er,, vs. DA#E P. YNARE"'"ANT!AG(, J YNARE"'"ANT!AG(, .) J.)
PR(#!"!(N) 1260 PR(#!"!(N) 1260 (but in this case it was made not applicable)
payment in an amount sufficient to extinguish the obligation makes the consignation is valid. D(*TR!NE) A valid tender of payment
NATRE) CA NATRE) CA reversed RTC. FA*T") 1.
Pursu ursuan antt to an A!r A!ree eeme ment nt And And "nde "ndert rta# a#in in! !$$ peti petiti tion oner er Tedd% edd% &. Pabu! abu!ai ais$ s$ in consideration o' the amount P1$*+$00.00$ P1$*+$00.00$ a!reed to sell to respondent respondent ,ave P. -ahiwani a lot containin! 1$2/ suare meters located at acaranda -treet$ 3orth 4orbes Par#.
2.
Respon Respondent dent paid paid petitioner petitioner the amount amount o' P600$000. P600$000.00 00 as option5res option5reserva ervation tion 'ee and the balance o' P1$**+$00.00 to be paid within 60 da%s 'rom the eecution o' the contract$ simult simultan aneou eous s with with deliv deliver% er% o' the owne owner7s r7s dupli duplicat cate e Trans'e rans'err Certi Certi8ca 8cate te o' Title Title in respondent7s name the ,eed o' Absolute -ale9 the Certi8cate o' 3on:Ta ,elinuenc% on real estate taes and Clearance on Pa%ment o' Association ,ues.
/.
!F RE"P(NDENT FA!+" to FA!+" to pa% the balance o' the purchase price; entitles petitioner to 'or'eit 'or'eit the P600$000 P600$000.00 .00 option5r option5rese eservati rvation on 'ee9 while non:deli non:deliver% ver% b% the latter o' the necessar% documents obli!es him to return to respondent the said option5reservation 'ee with interest at 1*< per annum.
.
Petition Petitioner er 'ailed to deliver deliver the reuire reuired d documents. documents. =n compliance compliance with with their a!reement a!reement$$ he returned to respondent the latter7s P600$000.00 option5reservation 'ee b% wa% o' 4ar >ast ?an# @ Trust Compan% which was$ however$ dishonored.
.
Petitioner: e twice tendered to respondent$ throu!h his counsel$ the amount o' P6+2$00.00 (representin! the P600$000.00 option5reservation 'ee plus 1*< interest per annum computed 'rom ,ecember /$ 1/ to Au!ust /$ 1) in the 'orm o' a chec# but said counsel re'used to accept the same (1 st:via messen!er9 2nd:via ,B) ?ecause o' these re'usals$ he wrote a letter sa%in! sa%in! that he is consi!nin! the amount tendered with the RTC a#ati Cit%.
6.
Respondent ; Admitted that his oDce received petitioner7s letter but claimed that no chec# was appended thereto. e averred that there was no valid tender o' pa%ment because no chec# was tendered and the computation o' the amount to be tendered was insuDcient$ because petitioner verball% promised to pa% /< monthl% interest and 2< attorne%7s 'ees as penalt% 'or de'ault$ in addition to the interest o' 1*< per annum on the P600$ 000.00 option5reservation 'ee.
+.
(Extra stuf or paranoid people-> not really related but talks about consignment too.) ,ecember ,ecember 20$ 2001; petitioner eecuted eecuted a E,eed E,eed o' Assi!nmentF Assi!nmentF in 'avor o' Att%. ,e &uGman$ r.$ part o' the P6+2$00.00 consi!ned with the TC as partial pa%ment o' the latterHs attorne%Hs 'ees. anuar% +$ 2002$ petitioner 8led an > Parte otion to Iithdraw Consi!ned one%.This was 'ollowed b% a Eotion to =nterveneF 8led b% Att%. ,e &uGman$ r.$ r.$ pra%in! that the amount consi!ned be be released released to him b% b% virtue o' the the ,eed o' Assi!nment.
*.
PetitionerHs motion to withdraw the amount consi!ned was denied b% the CA and the decision o' the trial court was aDrmed with modi8cation as to the amount o' moral dama!es and attorne%Hs 'ees.
.
Jn a motion 'or reconsideration$ the CA declared the consi!nation as valid in an Amended ,ecision. =t held that the validit% o' the consi!nation had the eKect o' etin!uishin! petitionerHs obli!ation to return the option5reservation 'ee to respondent. ence$ petitioner can no lon!er withdraw the same.:L P>T. petitioned that he can still withdraw.
!""E") 1. .
WON there was a valid consignation? WON the petitioner can withdraw the amount consigned as a matter of right?
$E+D) 1.
YES.
!f there is a valid tender of payment in an a mount sufficient to extinguish the obligation" the consignation is valid. #easons why respondent did not accept payment$
(1) The chec# mentioned in the Au!ust $ 1 letter o' petitioner mani'estin! that he is settlin! the obli!ation was not attached to the said letter9 and (2) The amount tendered was insuDcient to cover the obli!ation. Clearl%$ respondent didnHt accept the tender because o' its alle!ed insuDcienc% not because the said chec# was insuDcient or that it was a mana!erHs chec#. ?ut actuall%; (1) Petitioner7s tender o' pa%ment in the 'orm o' mana!er7s chec# is valid even thou!h it is not a le!al tender since he did not obect to the 'orm. (2) The amount tendered is suDcient since it appears that onl% the interest o' 1*< per annum on the P600$ 000.00 option5reservation 'ee stated in the de'ault clause o' the A!reement and "nderta#in! was a!reed upon b% the parties. NOTE !onsignation is t"e act o depositing t"e t"ing due #it" t"e court or $udicial aut"orities #"ene%er t"e creditor cannot accept or reuses to accept payment and it generally re&uires a prior tender o payment. 2. 3.
NO.
%Withdrawal of the money consigned would enrich petitioner and un&ustly pre&udice respondent.
Reliance on Article 1260 is MISPLACED. !t
provides that 'Once the consignation has been duly made" the debtor may ask the &udge to order the cancellation of the obligation( WHY #espondent)s
prayer in his answer that the amount consigned be awarded to him is e*uivalent to an acceptance of the consignation" which has the effect of extinguishing petitioner)s obligation. +etitioner failed to manifest his intention to comply with the ,Agreement and -ndertaking, by not delivering the necessary documents and the lot sub&ect of the sale to respondent in exchange for the amount deposited.
E-TRAIith re!ard to Att%. ,e &uGman; withdrawal violates 3CC 11 which 'orbids law%ers 'rom acuirin! b% assi!nment$ propert% and ri!hts which are the obect o' an% liti!ation in which the% ma% ta#e part b% virtue o' their pro'ession. Also$ Rule 10 o' the Canons o' Pro'essional >thics provides that Ethe law%er should not purchase an% interest in the subect matter o' the liti!ation which he is conductin!.F The assailed transaction 'alls within the prohibition:L attorne%Hs 'ees was eecuted durin! the pendenc% o' this case with the CA. =n his otion to =ntervene$ Att%. ,e &uGman$ r.$ not onl% asserted ownership over said amount$ but li#ewise pra%ed that the same be released to him. That petitioner #nowin!l% and voluntaril% assi!ned the subect amount to his counsel did not remove their a!reement within the ambit o' the prohibitor% provisions. To !rant the withdrawal would be to sanction a void contract. 2. 1.
D!"P("!T(N) P>T=T=J3 ,>3=>,.
