Law on Obligations and Contracts. A Case Digest about G.R. No. 133803, September 16, 2005. A group work during our first semester for the third year in college. BIENVENIDO M. CASIÑO, JR., P…Full description
covers cases of Part 2 of Syllabus of Election law
case digest
case digest format for polirev.Full description
Case Digest Criminal LawFull description
Digest Manuel Reyes v CA
Full description
Full description
Legal EthicsFull description
Full description
fFull description
Disini Case DigestFull description
JOHNY T. T. TUMALIUAN Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Broquea! ".#. No. $%&'$(! Nove)*er $%! +($( ,ACTS- Petitioners Gerong and Editha Broqueza are employees of Hongkong and and Shang Shangha haii Banki Banking ng Corp Corpor orat atio ion n (HSB (HSBC) C).. hey hey are are also also mem! mem!er ers s of respo responde ndent nt HSBC" HSBC" #td. #td. Sta$ Sta$ %etire etiremen mentt Plan Plan (HSBC (HSBC#&S #&S%P %P"" plaint plainti$) i$) he HSBC#&S%P is a retirement plan esta!lished !y HSBC through its !oard of trustees for the !ene't of the employees. n to!er *" *++," petitioner Broqueza o!tained a ar loan in the amount of Php *-",,,.,,. n /eem!er *0" *++*" she again applied and 1as granted an appliane loan in the amount of Php02",,,.,,. n the other hand" petitioner Gerong applied and 1as granted an emergeny loan in the amount of Php3"-4,.,, on 5une 0" *++3. hese loans are paid through automati salary dedution. 6ean1 6ean1hi hile le in *+ *++3 +3"" a la!o la!orr disp disput ute e arose arose !et1 !et1ee een n HSBC HSBC and and its its employees. 6a7ority of HSBC8s employees 1ere terminated" 9mong 1hom petitioners. he employees then 'led an illegal dismissal ase !efore the :#%C against HSBC. Beause of their dismissal" petitioners 1ere not a!le to pay the monthly amortizations of their respeti;e loans. hus respondent ons onsid ider ered ed the the ao aoun unts ts deli delinq nque uent nt.. /ema /emand nds s to pay the the respe espet ti; i;e e o!ligations 1ere made upon petitioners" !ut they failed to pay. pay.
,ACTS- he parties in this ase entered in a 6emorandum of 9greement (6o9) that ?:#9/ 1ill in;est in additional stoks 1orth ₱2.46 and pay up immediately ₱*.06 for said su!sription 1hile the respondents" /ragon and ompany" shall transfer ontrol and management o;er the %ural Bank to ?:#9/ %esoures. he respondents omplied 1ith their o!ligation !ut the petitioners did not" thus respondents 'led a omplaint for resission of the agreement and the return of ontrol and management of the %ural Bank from petitioners to respondents" plus damages. ISSU- <: the resission of the 69 !et1een the parties is proper= #ULIN"- @es" the 69 !et1een the parties an !e resinded pursuant to 9rtile **+* of the Ci;il Code 1hih states that Athe po1er to resind o!ligations is implied in reiproal ones" in ase one of the o!ligors should not omply 1ith 1hat is inum!ent upon him. Sine ?:#9/ failed to omply 1ith 1hat is inum!ent upon him" the other party&the respondents an ask for resission of the 6o9 on suh ground. Clearly" the petitioners failed to ful'll their end of the agreement" and thus" there 1as 7ust ause for resission.
A"A1ITO MANUL! pe7i7ioner! vs. HON. COU#T O, A11ALS! HON. #AMON MA8ASIA# and S1OUSS JSUS / JSUS and CA#MN / JSUS! responden7s. ".#. No. 392'3 Ju56 +9! $33$
,ACTS- his ase originated from a omplaint for e7etment 'led !y herein pri;ate respondents against herein petitioner !efore the 6etropolitan rial Court of 6anila" doketed as Ci;il Case :o. *00*3&CD" for non&payment of rentals on an apartment unit o1ned !y pri;ate respondents and rented !y petitioner. >t appears that the pri;ate respondents are the o1ners of an apartment unit 1hih 1as rented !y the petitioner on a month to month !asis for a monthly rental of P2.,, paya!le in ad;ane that the petitioner failed to pay the orresponding rentals for the month of 6ay *+4- up to the 'ling of the omplaint on 9ugust 3*" *+4- that on 5uly +" *+4-" pri;ate respondents" through their ounsel" sent a demand letter to the petitioner (EFhi!it %) requiring him to pay his rentals in arrears and to ;aate the leased premises 1ithin ';e () days from reeipt thereof" other1ise pri;ate respondents 1ill !e onstrained to 'le the appropriate legal ation against him that the demand letter of pri;ate respondents ounsel 1as reei;ed !y the petitioner on 5uly *2" *+4- that in response thereto" the petitioner addressed a letter dated 5uly *" *+4- to pri;ate respondent Carmen de 5esus" furnishing a opy thereof to her ounsel" stating that the amount of rentals" 1hih the pri;ate respondents allegedly refused to reei;e" had !een deposited at ?nited Coonut Planters Bank" aft 9;enue Branh" 1ith 9ount :o. 44+3 in the name of the petitioners son" 6ario 6anuel" and ould !e 1ithdra1n upon notie of payment that in order to ollet the said rentals allegedly deposited 1ith the !ank" the pri;ate respondents ounsel sent a letter dated 9ugust *2" *+4- to the petitioner" requesting the payment of the unpaid rentals to his (pri;ate respondents ounsel) oIe that the said letter 1as reei;ed !y the petitioner on 9ugust *4" *+4-" and" instead of omplying 1ith pri;ate respondents ounsels request" the petitioner addressed a letter dated 9ugust 02" *+4- to the pri;ate respondents ounsel requesting that
the rentals in arrears !e paid to the pri;ate respondents at petitioners house. he pri;ate respondents did not heed the petitioners request. n 9pril " *+4+" after the parties had su!mitted their respeti;e aIda;its and position papers" the said metropolitan trial ourt rendered 7udgment in fa;or of pri;ate respondents" as plainti$s therein. he %C aIrmed in toto the deision of the ourt a quo and the C9 dismissed the same for lak of merit.
ISSU- :HTH# O# NOT TH 1#I0AT 1TITION# COM1LI/ :ITH TH #;;UI#MNTS O, TH LA:< #ULIN"- :. he a1ard of the lot to petitioner !y :H9 does not automatially ;est in him o1nership o;er the leased struture thereon. Petitioner annot in;oke the pro;isions of the Ci;il Code on aession there !eing an eFisting lessor and lessee relation !et1een him and pri;ate respondents. Proeedings in fori!le entry and detainer are 1holly summary in nature. he fat of lease and the eFpiration of its terms are the only elements of this kind of ation. he question of o1nership is unessential and should !e raised !y the defendant in an appropriate ation. 9ny ontro;ersy o;er o1nership right ould and should !e settled after the party 1ho had the prior" peaeful and atual possession is returned to the property. he ontention of petitioner that pri;ate respondents are in mora accipiendi annot !e upheld either. he failure of the o1ners to ollet or their refusal to aept the rentals are not ;alid defenses. Consignation" under suh irumstanes" is neessary" $% and !y this 1e mean one that is e$eted in full ompliane 1ith the spei' requirements of the la1 therefor. Setion (!) of Batas Pam!ansa Blg. 0" as amended" pro;ides that in ase of refusal !y the lessor to aept payment of the rental agreed upon" the lessee shall either deposit" !y 1ay of onsignation" the amount in ourt or in a !ank in the name of and 1ith notie to the lessor. he failure of herein petitioner to omply 1ith said requirement makes the onsignation defeti;e and gi;es rise to a ause of ation for e7etment. $& Compliane 1ith the requisites of a ;alid onsignation is mandatory. >t must !e omplied 1ith frilly and stritly in aordane 1ith the la1. Su!stantial ompliane is not enough. $3 Jrom the earlier disussion" petitioner e;idently did not omply 1ith the requirements for onsignation presri!ed !y the go;erning la1.
