Victor YAM and Yek Sun Lent v CA and ManPhil Investment Facts:

6. The amount of 410,853 was the sum of principal and interest less the partial payment of 50k. The private respondent sent two demand letters seeking payment of the 266,146.88 balance but petitioners made no response. 7. Hence, private respondents filed suit for collection of sum of money.

1.

May 10, 1979, parties entered into a Loan Agreement with Assumption of Solidary Liability whereby petitioners were given a loan of 500,000PHP from private respondent:

8.

2.

12% annual interest; 2% monthly penalty; 1 % monthly service charge; and 10% attorneys fees; Denominated first Industrial Guarantee and Loan Fund (IGLF); Secured by a chattel mortgage on the printing machinery in petitioners establishment;

Petitioners Answer claimed that they had fully paid their obligation. They contended that sometime after receiving the July 2 counteroffer, petitioners met with Carlos Sobrepeas, president of respondent corporation, who agreed to waive the penalties and service charges if petitioners would pay the principal and interest less the earlier payment of 50k; this was reflected in the voucher notated full payment of IGLF LOAN. 9. RTC favoured private respondent and ordered petitioners to pay the balance; CA affirmed in toto.

A second IGLF load worth 300,000PHP was subsequently obtained by petitioners evidenced by two promissory notes, dated July 3, 1981 and September 30, 1981. For this purpose, a new loan agreement was entered into by the parties containing the same provisions with the first one, except:

To the annual interest which was increased to 14%; and the service charge which was reduced to 1% per annum.

The deed of chattel mortgage was amended correspondingly. 3. By April 2, 1985, petitioners paid the first loan of 500k. On November 4, 1985, private respondent was placed receivership by the Central Bank and Ricardo Lirio and Cristina Destajo were appointed as receiver and inhouse examiner, respectively.

Issue: W/N petitioners are liable for the payment of the penalties and service charge. Held and Ratio: Yes, they are liable. Article 1270(2) of CC provides that express condonation must comply with the forms of donation. Article 748(3) donation and acceptance of a movable, the value of which exceeds 5,000.00PHP, must be made in writing, otherwise, the same shall be void. Article 417(2), obligations, actually referring to credits, are considered movable property. In this case, the alleged agreement to condone 266,146.88 of the second IGLF loan was not reduced in writing. Annotation of full payment of IGLF loan: Merely states petitioners intention in making the payment, but in no way does it bind private respondent;

4.

On May 17, 1986, petitioners paid partial payment of 50k on the second loan. They wrote to private respondent on June 18, 1986, proposing to settle the obligation. On July 2, 1986, private respondent counter offered saying it would reduce the penalty charges up to 140k if petitioners can pay on or before July 30, 1986. 5. As of July 31, 1986, petitioners liability to private respondent was 727,001.35, broken down as follows: Prinicpal Interest Penalties Service Charges TOTAL P P 295,496.47 165.385.00 254,820.55 11,326.33 717,001.35

On same date, petitioners paid 410,853.47 by means of a Pilipans Bank check. Corresponding voucher was notated full payment of IGLF LOAN.

 Though it would be a different matter if the notation appeared in a receipt issued by respondent corporation, thru its receiver, because then it would be an admission against interest; Petitioners should have asked for a certificate of full payment, as they did in the first IGLF loan Contention that it was the Central Bank examiner assigned to respondent corporation who signed the voucher in question (so it should be valid as full payment) Examiner said she merely took note of the amount and the check number indicated therein, she failed to notice that the amount was being given in full payment; Examiner doesnt have authority to condone any indebtedness, her duties being limited to issuing receipt, preparing check vouchers and documentation; Also, the corporation had already been placed under receivership since November 4, 1985, Sobrepeas had no authority to condone any debt since the appointment of a receiver operates to suspend the authority of a [corporation] and of its directors and officers over its property and effects, such authority being reposed in the receiver; Petitioners must not feign ignorance since Mrs. Yam already testified that when sought the release of the chattel mortgage over their property, they were told only the CB would authorize the same because it is the receiver; Contention that there were no received two letters finding of fact which the lower court found otherwise.

JUDGMENT: CA AFFIRMED

Ken Molave 2015 D