Riesenbeck v. Court of Appeals Johannes Riesenbeck, petitioner v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and Juergen Maile, respondents
Topic: Topic: Obligations Obligations;; Extinguishmen Extinguishmentt of Obligations Obligations;; Voluntary; Voluntary; By Execution; Execution; Tender of Payment Payment and Consignation Doctrine: Doctrine: Acceptance of the amount consigned by the creditor with a reservation/qualification as to correctness is legally permissible. Nature: Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Date: Date: 1992 Ponente: Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J. Facts: Facts: On 25 July 1988, petitioner petitioner Riesenbeck filed a complaint complaint for consignatio consignation n and damages against private respondent Maile in the RTC of Cebu. Two days later, he (petitioner) consigned and deposited with the Clerk of Court P 113,750. The private respondent then filed a Manifestation Accepting Consignation and Motion to Dismiss (1 August 1988), stating “ without necessarily admi admitt ttin ing g the the corr correc ectn tnes ess s of the the obli obliga gati tion on of plai plaint ntif ifff to defe defend ndan ant t , the the latt latter er [pri [priva vate te respondent] hereby manifests to accept the said amount of P 113,750 which is consigned by plaintiff, provided that the present complaint be dismissed outright with cost against plaintiff.” Ries Riesenb enbec eck k oppo opposed sed the the ma manif nifest estat atio ion, n, but the the lowe lowerr court court rule ruled d that that there there wa was s a vali valid d consignation, and the private respondent could legally accept the payment by consignation with reservation to prove damages and other claims. The trial court cited the case of Sing Juco v. Cuaycong as its basis. The petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The The Court Court of Appeals Appeals also denied denied his petiti petition on for certiora certiorari, ri, and his subsequ subsequent ent motion motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then went to the Supreme Court. Issue: Issue: Can a creditor accept with reservation the amount consigned by the debtor? Held: Held: Yes, it is legally permissible. The instant petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Ratio: Ratio: Private respondent’s acceptance of the amount consigned by the petitioner-debtor with a reservation or qualification as to the correctness of the petitioner’s obligation is legally permissible. Before a consignation can be judicially declared proper, the creditor may prevent the withdrawal withdrawal of the amount consigned by accepting accepting the consignatio consignation, n, even with reservation (Tolentino). The Court mentioned the case of Sing Juco, where they ruled that the plaintiff’s acceptance of the money consigned, unconditionally and without reservation, was a waiver of his other claims creditor tor’s ’s condi conditio tional nal accep acceptan tance ce of the money money under under the contra contract. ct. Conseq Consequent uently, ly, a credi consigned means that he has not waived the claims he reserved against his debtor . Thus, when the amount consigned does not cover the entire obligation, the creditor may accept it, reserving his right to the balance (Tolentino). The creditor is not barred from raising his other claims. Consignation is completed at the time the creditor accepts the amount without objections . If he objects, it is deemed completed when the court declares that is has been validly made in accordance with the law. There was a valid consignation by the petitioner, as declared by the lower court. He cannot argue that he is still the owner of the amount consigned and that he can still withdraw it. The
consignation has a retroactive effect. The payment was considered made on 27 July 1988. (No concurring or dissenting opinions.)
