Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > January 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 43830 January 22, 1990 - LILY SAN BUENAVENTURA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 43830. January 22, 1990.]

LILY SAN BUENAVENTURA and JOHN DOE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and EVEREST TEXTILE CO., INC., Respondents.

Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Africano & Associates, for Petitioners.

Syquia Law Offices for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. UNIFORM CURRENCY ACT (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 529); GENERAL RULE ON PAYMENT OF OBLIGATION IN CURRENCY OTHER THAN THE PHILIPPINE CURRENCY; EXCEPTION. — An agreement to pay an obligation in a currency other than Philippine currency is null and void as contrary to public policy, what the law specifically prohibits is payment in currency other than legal tender but does not defeat a creditor’s claim for payment. A contrary rule would allow a person to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another’s expense. With regard to obligations incurred prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 529 requiring payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency, it is specifically provided that the same shall be discharged in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred except in case of a loan made in a foreign currency stipulated to be payable in the same currency in which case the rate of exchange prevailing at the stipulated date of payment shall prevail. In the case before Us, petitioners’ obligation was incurred after the enactment of Republic Act No. 529, as amended. As held in Kalalo v. Luz (supra) and as correctly relied upon by respondent appellate court, the rate of exchange should be that prevailing at the time of payment.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, C.J.:


This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 53423-R entitled "Everest Textile Co., Inc., plaintiff-appellant, versus Lily San Buenaventura, Et Al., defendants-appellees," reversing the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVI, Pasig, and ordering defendants-appellees to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of $2,614.42 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment, as principal obligation, plus legal interest thereon per annum from date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. 2

The facts of the case as found by the appellate court are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On several occasions, particularly on November 21, 1967, December 21, 1967 and January 3, 1968, petitioner Lily San Buenaventura purchased directly on credit textile materials and other allied goods from private respondent in the total amount of US$14,612.20, which purchases were to be paid by petitioner within thirty (30) days from the date of sale.

On April 19, 1969 and in September of 1969, petitioners paid directly to private respondent the total amount of US $7,500.00, thereby reducing their undisputed principal obligation of US $14,612.20 to US $7,112.20. Ten percent (10%) of the balance was added as collection charges, giving a total balance of US $7,823.42; which petitioner Lily San Buenaventura, on February 19, 1970, acknowledged and promised to pay through the Syquia Law Offices under the following agreement, the terms and conditions being:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That you are indebted to said client in the sum of $7,823.42 which you have agreed to pay thru the SYQUIA LAW OFFICES in monthly installments of $4,000.00 beginning on February 19, 1970 and every 19th day of each month thereafter until the full amount is paid;

"That for all purposes of the law, please consider this letter as an agreement and confirmation of the aforesaid obligation and its schedule of payment as above indicated." 3

Thereafter, petitioners made several partial installment payments amounting to a total sum of P32,812.00 which according to private respondent, if computed at the floating market rate of the US dollar at the time of the said payment would only amount to $5,209.00. Allegedly, this amount if deducted from the original balance of $7,823.42 as reflected in the aforequoted letter agreement dated February 19, 1970 would leave an unpaid balance of $2,614.42.cralawnad

On the other hand, petitioners contend that the amount of $7,823.42 had been fully paid through the Syquia Law Offices retained by private respondent for collection purposes since the agreement entered into by them with the private respondent through said law office was for them to pay the remaining balance of the indebtedness in its peso equivalent at the rate of P4.00 to a dollar by installment and since they had already paid P32,812.00 through the said law offices, the obligation or liability to the private respondent had been extinguished or dissolved.

This difference in opinion led to the institution of Civil Case No. 16248 before the then CFI of Rizal, Branch XXVI, Pasig, by private respondent to recover from petitioners the alleged unpaid balance of $2,614.42.

The trial court in its decision dated May 25, 1973 relying on the ruling in Arrieta v. National Rice and Corn Corporation 4 held that "in line with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case previously adverted to, the Court will have no alternative but to utilize the date of the Letter Agreement as the pivotal factor in the resolution and determination of whether the Defendants have complied with their obligation created under and in pursuance of the Letter Agreement, Exhibit "B." Since the uncontroverted evidence on record shows that the rate of exchange obtaining on the date the Letter Agreement was entered into by the parties was 4 to 1, then it necessarily follows that the installment payments on the indebtedness should be credited in accordance with the said peso equivalent of the dollar on the said date." 5

Before respondent appellate court, however, the decision of the trial court was reversed on the ground that the obligation to pay $2,614.42 did not arise from the Letter Agreement, the amount being merely the outstanding balance of herein petitioners’ obligation with herein private respondent contracted in 1967 and 1968. The appellate court further said that the ruling in Arrieta v. National Rice and Corn Corporation applies only to obligations incurred prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 529, but not to obligations incurred after its enactment. Republic Act No. 529, as amended, does not provide for the payment of an obligation incurred after the enactment of the Act. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the rate of exchange should be that prevailing at the time of payment. 6

Hence this petition for review raising the sole legal question of what rate of exchange of the U.S. Dollar to the Philippine Peso should be applied in converting petitioner’s monetary obligation to private respondent in the amount of US $2,614.42 to its equivalent value in Philippine Peso. Is it the rate of exchange prevailing at the time the obligation was incurred or that prevailing at the time of its payment?

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, "An Act to Assure Uniform Value to Philippine Coin and Currency", reads:chanrobles law library : red

"SECTION 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any domestic obligation, to wit, any obligation contracted in the Philippines which provision purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines measured thereby, be as it is hereby declared against public policy, and null, void and of no effect, and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to, any obligation hereafter incurred. The above prohibition shall not apply to (a) transactions where the funds involved are the proceeds of loans or investments made directly or indirectly, through bona fide intermediaries or agents, by foreign governments, their agencies and instrumentalities, and international financial and banking institutions so long as the funds are identifiable, as having emanated from the sources enumerated above; (b) transactions affecting high priority economic projects for agricultural, industrial and power development as may be determined by the National Economic Council which are financed by or through foreign funds; (c) foreign exchange transactions entered into between banks or between banks and individuals or juridical persons; (d) import-export and other international banking, financial investment and industrial transactions. With the exception of the cases enumerated in items (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the foregoing provision, in which cases the terms of the parties’ agreement shall apply, every other domestic obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts: Provided, That if the obligation was incurred prior to enactment of this Act and required payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency, it shall be discharged in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rates of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred, except in case of a loan made in a foreign currency stipulated to be payable in the same currency in which case the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of the stipulated date of payment shall prevail. All coin and currency, including Central Bank notes, heretofore and hereafter issued and declared by the Government of the Philippines, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is to be noted under the foregoing provision that while an agreement to pay an obligation in a currency other than Philippine currency is null and void as contrary to public policy, what the law specifically prohibits is payment in currency other than legal tender but does not defeat a creditor’s claim for payment. A contrary rule would allow a person to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another’s expense. 7

With regard to obligations incurred prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 529 requiring payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency, it is specifically provided that the same shall be discharged in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred 8 except in case of a loan made in a foreign currency stipulated to be payable in the same currency in which case the rate of exchange prevailing at the stipulated date of payment shall prevail.

In the case before Us, petitioners’ obligation was incurred after the enactment of Republic Act No. 529, as amended. As held in Kalalo v. Luz (supra) and as correctly relied upon by respondent appellate court, the rate of exchange should be that prevailing at the time of payment. 9

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. This decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioners.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Reyes, L.B., J., and concurred in by de Castro, P.P. and Ericta, V.G. JJ.

2. Rollo, pp. 42-50.

3. Rollo, p. 43.

4. 10 SCRA 88.

5. CFI Division, Record on Appeal, p. 32.

6. Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337.

7. Ponce v. Court of Appeals, 90 SCRA 533.

8. Philippine National Bank v. Zulueta, 101 Phil. 1071; Eastboard Navigation Ltd. v. J. Ysmael & Co., 102 Phil. 1.

9. Zagala v. Jimenez, 152 SCRA 147 citing Phoenix Assurance Company v. Macondray & Co., Inc., 64 SCRA 15.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990 - PETER NIERRAS v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59731 January 11, 1990 - ALFREDO CHING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76238 January 11, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NOGUERRAS

  • G.R. No. 85332 January 11, 1990 - BIENVENIDO PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-87-104 January 11, 1990 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE M. ESTACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 45355 January 12, 1990 - PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL v. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 59284 January 12, 1990 - JUANITO CARDOZA v. PABLO S. SINGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75679 January 12, 1990 - ROSAURO C. CRUZ v. AUGUSTO E. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76752 January 12, 1990 - ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83982 January 12, 1990 - JESUS C. JAKIHACA v. LILIA AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30670 January 17, 1990 - PASTOR TANCHOCO, ET AL. v. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52728 January 17, 1990 - AVELINO C. AGULTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74938-39 January 17, 1990 - ANGELINA J. MALABANAN v. GAW CHING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75663 January 17, 1990 - ANTONIO G. AMBROSIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75979 January 17, 1990 - RAYMUNDO MARABELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79436-50 January 17, 1990 - EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85915 January 17, 1990 - PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INT’L., ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88864 January 17, 1990 - PACIFIC MILLS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44414 January 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO TALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57455 January 18, 1990 - EVELYN DE LUNA, ET AL. v. SOFRONIO F. ABRIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41835 January 19, 1990 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. FILOMENO GAPULTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 43495 January 20, 1990 - TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42735 January 22, 1990 - RAMON L. ABAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 43830 January 22, 1990 - LILY SAN BUENAVENTURA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46238 January 22, 1990 - LAUREANA TAMBOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47663 January 22, 1990 - BELSTAR TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. BOARD OF TRANS., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54908 January 22, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MITSUBISHI METAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62805 January 22, 990

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 68520 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO PASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68935 January 22, 1990 - JOSE PENEYRA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72138 January 22, 1990 - FELICIDAD M. ALVENDIA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72654-61 January 22, 1990 - ALIPIO R. RUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74062-63 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL TRIPOLI

  • G.R. No. 76422 January 22, 1990 - UNITED HOUSING CORP. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76788 January 22, 1990 - JUANITA SALAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77853 January 22, 1990 - MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC. v. CRESENCIO R. INIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78212 January 22, 1990 - T.H. VALDERAMA & SONS, INC., ET AL. v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78265 January 22, 1990 - ESTANISLAO CARBUNGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80102 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO LUCAS

  • G.R. No. 82146 January 22, 1990 - EULOGIO OCCENA v. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84843-44 January 22, 1990 - NURHUSSEIN A. UTUTALUM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85251 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMO ARENGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44617 January 23, 1990 - CECILIO ORTEGA , ET AL. v. DOMINADOR AGRIPA TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75304 January 23, 1990 - BIENVENIDA PANGILINAN, ET AL. v. FIDEL RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86100-03 January 23, 1990 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86301 January 23, 1990 - JULIAN SY, ET AL. v. JAIME D. DISCAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87449 January 23, 1990 - SOUTH MOTORISTS ENTERPRISES v. ROQUE TOSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77854 January 24, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BACANI

  • G.R. No. 42514 January 25, 1990 - RODOLFO P. GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. REGINA ORDOÑEZ-BENITEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78325 January 25, 1990 - DEL MONTE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 34019 January 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO LINGATONG

  • G.R. No. 38387 January 29, 1990 - HILDA WALSTROM v. FERNANDO MAPA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50464 January 29, 1990 - SUNBEAM CONVENIENCE FOODS INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52491 January 29, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67301 January 29, 1990 - MANUEL V. BALA v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69018 January 29, 1990 - ERNESTO S. DIZON, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77088 January 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YAGONG

  • G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990 - LAURO SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 79956 January 29, 1990 - CORDILLERA BROAD COALITION v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 81066 January 29, 1990 - SIXTO PROVIDO v. PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82028 January 29, 1990 - FILOMENO N. LANTION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85281 January 29, 1990 - CARLOS VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90878 January 29, 1990 - PABLITO V. SANIDAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 33777 January 30, 1990 - PACIFIC PRODUCTS, INC. v. VICENTE S. ONG

  • G.R. No. 43356 January 30, 1990 - THELMA FERNAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46345 January 30, 1990 - RESTITUTO CENIZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49188 January 30, 1990 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62370 January 30, 1990 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ROSALIO A. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66386 January 30, 1990 - GUILLERMO BAÑAGA, ET AL. v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76902 January 30, 1990 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78555 January 30, 1990 - ROMULO S. BULAONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80508 January 30, 1990 - EDDIE GUAZON, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83341 January 30, 1990 - ARNEL P. MISOLAS v. BENJAMIN V. PANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85266 January 30, 1990 - PHIL. VETERANS INVESTMENT DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85934 January 30, 1990 - SSK PARTS CORPORATION v. TEODORICO CAMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86383 January 30, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO ROSELL

  • G.R. No. 88421 January 30, 1990 - AYALA CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JOB B. MADAYAG, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3360 January 30, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FE T. TUANDA

  • A.M. No. P-87-119 January 30, 1990 - THELMA A. PONFERRADA v. EDNA RELATOR