G.R. No.

82670 September 15, 1989

DOMETILA M. ANDRES, doing business under the name and style "IRENE'S WEARING
APPAREL," petitioner,
vs.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS:

Andres, using the business name Irenes Wearing Apparel was engaged in the manufacture of ladies
garments, childrens wear, mens apparel and linens for local and foreign buyers. Among its foreign
buyers was Facets of the United States.

Sometime in August 1980, Facets instructed the First National State Bank (FNSB) of New Jersey to
transfer $10,000 to Irenes Wearing Apparel via Philippine National Bank (PNB) Sta Cruz, Manila branch.
FNSB instructed Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corporation (Mantrust) to effect the transfer by
charging the amount to the account of FNSB with private respondent.

After Mantrust effected the transfer, the payment was not effected immediately because the payee
designated in the telex was only Wearing Apparel. Private respondent sent PNB another telex stating
that the payment was to be made to Irenes Wearing Apparel.

On August 28, 1989, petitioner received the remittance of $10,000.

After learning about the delay, Facets informed FNSB about the situation. Facets, unaware that petitioner
had already received the remittance, informed private respondent and amended its instruction by asking it
to effect the payment to Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. Private respondent, also unaware
that petitioner had already received the remittance, instructed PCIB to pay $10,000 to petitioner. Hence,
petitioner received another $10,000 which was charged again to the accounts of Facets with FNSB.

FNSB discovered that private respondent had made a duplication of remittance. Private respondent
asked petitioner to return the second remittance of $10,000 but the latter refused to do so contending that
the doctrine of Solutio Indebiti does not apply because there was negligence on the part of the
respondents and that they were not unjustly enriched since Facets still has a balance of $49,324.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000 remittance it
had delivered to petitioner.

RULING:

Yes. Art. 2154 of the New Civil Code is applicable. For this article to apply, the following requisites must
concur:
 1. That he who paid was not under obligation to do so; and
2. That payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact.

There was a mistake not negligence in the second remittance. It was evident by the fact that both
remittances have the same invoice number.