Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GR 156846
23 Feb 2004
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
FIRST ISSUE
o YES. The issues to be resolved in the instant case concerns one
of the important requisites of consignation, i.e, the existence of a
valid tender of payment. As testified by the counsel for
Sahijwani, the reasons why his client did not accept Pabugaiss
tender of payment were (1) the check mentioned in the
August 5, 1994 letter of Pabugais manifesting that he is settling
the obligation was not attached to the said letter and (2) the
amount tendered was insufficient to cover the obligation. It is
obvious that the reason for Sahijwanis non-acceptance of the
tender of payment was the alleged insufficiency thereof and
not because the said check was not tendered to Sahijwani, or
because it was in the form of managers check. While it is true
that in general, a managers check is not legal tender, the
creditor has the option of refusing or accepting it. Payment in
check by the debtor may be acceptable as valid, if no prompt
objection to said payment is made. Consequently, Pabugaiss
tender of payment in the form of managers check is valid.
o Anent the sufficiency of the amount tendered, it appears that
only the interest of 18% per annum on the P600,000.00
option/reservation fee stated in the default clause of the
Agreement And Undertaking was agreed upon by the parties.
o The managers check in the amount of P672,900.00 which was
tendered but refused by Sahijwani, and thereafter consigned with
the court, was enough to satisfy the obligation.
SECOND ISSUE
o NO. His reliance on Article 1260 of the Civil Code is misplaced.
o The amount consigned with the trial court can no longer be
withdrawn by Pabugais because Sahijwanis prayer in his answer
that the amount consigned be awarded to him is equivalent to an
acceptance of the consignation, which has the effect of
extinguishing Pabugaiss obligation.
o Moreover, Pabugais failed to manifest his intention to comply
with the Agreement And Undertaking by delivering the
necessary documents and the lot subject of the sale to Sahijwani
in exchange for the amount deposited. Withdrawal of the money
consigned would enrich Pabugais and unjustly prejudice
Sahijwani.