Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > August 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22254 August 8, 1967 - QUIRICO DEL MAR v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22254. August 8, 1967.]

QUIRICO DEL MAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, now the DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

Quirico del Mar for Petitioner-Appellant.

J .A. Avanceña, S. Jakosalem, J .B. Arquisola and B.K . Oro for Respondent-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS; INDEBTEDNESS TO GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS; INDORSEMENT OF BACKPAY CERTIFICATE BEFORE MATURITY; DISCOUNT RATE; ITS VALIDITY AND REASON THEREFOR. — Republic Act 897 permits a discount rate of not exceeding 2% on a non-negotiable backpay certificate, such as in this case, where the same is indorsed to pay an obligation, The reason for the discount is obvious; the certificate is not yet due and payable; until it matures, it is not worth its face value. Redemption thereof at maturity does not involve a discount because by then it will have reached its full value stated on its face; it will have matured. The present case, however, does not involve redemption but indorsement of the certificate before maturity. For accepting said certificate prior to its due date, RFC is entitled to charge a discount rate not exceeding that stated by the law, 2% per annum.

2. ID; COMPENSATION; CONDITIONS THEREFOR; CASE AT BAR. — There cannot be compensation of the debts involved in this case. For compensation applies only where debts are due (Art. 1279 [3], Civil Code); in this case, Del Mar’s debt to RFC is due; but the National Government’s liability to redeem the backpay certificate is not yet due.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


The Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) now the Development Bank of the Philippines, granted a loan to petitioner Quirico del Mar. As of March 26, 1957, the amount due on the principal balance of said loan plus interest was P4,423.04. Del Mar, on such date, offered to pay the same with a backpay acknowledgment certificate pursuant to Republic Act 897. The RFC refused to accept said certificate as payment. Del Mar filed suit to compel it to accept the same (Civil Case No. R-5324, CFI of Cebu), and RFC was therein ordered to accept Del Mar’s backpay certificate in payment for his debt to RFC. And the decision in said case became final.

Del Mar’s aforesaid backpay certificate was in the amount of P20,000.00, more or less. In accepting it as payment of his obligation of P4,423.04, RFC discounted the certificate at the rate of 2% per annum in relation to its thirty-year maturity period. As of the date it was offered for payment, 315 months remained before it would mature. According to RFC’s computation, at the discount rate of 2% per annum, the discount for an obligation of P4,423.04, with 315 months to go before date of maturity, is P4,888.62, resulting in a total of P9,311.66 * to be assigned to RFC under the certificate to pay the aforesaid loan.

Taking issue with RFC’s power to charge a discount on his certificate, Del Mar filed another suit in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against RFC, on January 21, 1960, to compel acceptance of his certificate without discount. RFC opposed the same (Civil Case No. R- 6455). The court on June 28, 1963, dismissed the petition on the ground that Republic Act 897 authorized the charging of 2% per annum discount. Del Mar appealed to Us.

Appellant now contends that the RFC is barred by the rule of omnibus motion (Section 10, Rule 9, now Sec. 8, Rule 15, Rules of Court) from raising the point of discount because it did not do so in his first suit, Civil Case No. R-5324. This is untenable, since the right of RFC to charge a discount was not at issue in said case. As stated, Del Mar questioned said right only in the present case. The statute in question is Republic Act 897 amending Section 2 of Republic Act 304, to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. . . . [U]pon application and subject to such rules and regulations as may be approved by the Secretary of Finance a certificate of indebtedness may be issued by the Treasurer of the Philippines covering the whole or a part of the total salaries or wages the right to which has been duly acknowledged and recognized, provided that the face value of such certificate of indebtedness shall not exceed the amount that the applicant may need for the payment of (1) obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of this amendatory Act for which the applicant may directly be liable to the Government or to any of its branches or instrumentalities, or the corporations owned or controlled by the Government, or to any citizen of the Philippines, or to any association or corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement; (2) his taxes; (3) government hospital bills of the applicant; (4) lands purchased or leased or to be purchased or leased by him from the public domain; and (5) any amount received by the applicant as gratuity or pension which he has to refund to the Government or to any of its branches or instrumentalities: Provided, further, That such settlement shall be effected by indorsement on the instrument: Provided, furthermore, That no certificate shall be transferred or ceded by indorsement more than once, nor at a discount rate exceeding two per centum per annum: . . . Provided, furthermore, That in the case of members of the Philippine Army and of recognized guerilla forces and the Philippine Scouts herein mentioned who may apply for recognization of their back pay salaries, wages, per diems and/or allowances under the provisions of this amendatory Act, such back pay acknowledgment shall certify that it shall be redeemed by the Government of the Philippines within thirty years from the date of its issuance without interest depending upon the availability of funds which shall be determined by the Treasurer of the Philippines:"

It is rather obvious, therefore, that the law permits a discount rate of not exceeding 2% on a non-negotiable backpay certificate, such as in this case, where the same is indorsed to pay an obligation. The reason for the discount is equally clear: the certificate is not yet due and payable; it matures in thirty years from date of issue; until then, it is not fully worth its face value. Redemption thereof at maturity does not involve a discount because by then it will have reached its full value stated on its face; it will have matured. The present case, however, does not involve redemption but indorsement of the certificate before maturity. For accepting said certificate prior to its due date, RFC is entitled to charge a discount not exceeding that stated by the law, 2% per annum.

Appellant’s contention that there should simply be compensation of the debts involved, is not tenable. For compensation applies only where both debts are due (Art. 1279[3], Civil Code); in this case, Del Mar’s debt to RFC is due; but the National Government’s liability to redeem the backpay certificate is not yet due.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.

Reyes, J .B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



* See Record, p. 48. Appellant does not question the correctness of these figures; only the right to impose a discount.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20218 August 8, 1967 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22254 August 8, 1967 - QUIRICO DEL MAR v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22966 August 10, 1967 - FAUSTO MIPALAR v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21542 August 10, 1967 - IN RE: JOSEPH C. GO YANKO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23558 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24103 August 10, 1967 - BEATRIZ G. VDA. DE DIOS v. LEANDRO BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23281 August 10, 1967 - BILLY MILLARES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19531 August 10, 1967 - CLOROX COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21311 August 10, 1967 - PELAGIA PUGUID v. CIRILO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-21902 August 10, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24109 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIA P. DE OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-18805 August 14, 1967 - THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. MAXIMO M. KALAW, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 407 August 15, 1967 - IN RE:JOSE AVANCEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-22029 August 15, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO JARAVATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22821 August 15, 1967 - ASUNCION CONUI-OMEGA v. CESAR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-27017 August 15, 1967 - PACIFICO M. BRAGANZA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22380 August 15, 1967 - FERMIN SARE v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-24114 August 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22042 August 17, 1967 - DIONISIA GUINGON, ET AL. v. ILLUMINADO DEL MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21013 August 17, 1967 - UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22516 August 17, 1967 - LITTON & CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21806 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO DY OLIVA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23167 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: GEORGE QUE LIONG SIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24614 August 17, 1967 - JULIA DE LA MERCED, ET AL. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25171 August 17, 1967 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION (PAFLU) v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21128 August 19, 1967 - IN RE: AO SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21835 August 19, 1967 - CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24031 August 19, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22348 August 23, 1967 - GREGORIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23617 August 26, 1967 - ANGELO KING v. PABLO JOE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24383 August 26, 1967 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE & CASUALTY CO., INC. v. SMITH, BELL & CO., (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-27206 August 26, 1967 - IN RE: ANDRES M. CULANAG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-23561 August 28, 1967 - ALFONSO DARAN v. DOMINADOR ANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-20991 August 30, 1967 - RUFINO CIELOS, ET AL. v. BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21011 August 30, 1967 - ISABEL OCAMPO v. IGNACIO DOMALANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDITH ASIAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22072 August 30, 1967 - ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL. v. EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22260 August 30, 1967 - TEODORICO C. QUIOCHO v. BERNARDO P. ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 August 30, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 516 August 30, 1967 - TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-21501 August 30, 1967 - MANILA CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION v. MANILA CLUB, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21963 August 30, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ROBERTA RONGAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22108 August 30, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. MARCELINO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24066 August 30, 1967 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-21467 August 30, 1967 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18877 August 31, 1967 - JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22047 August 31, 1967 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22618 August 31, 1967 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23406 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: O KU PHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18778 & L-18779 August 31, 1967 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL. v. DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 August 31, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967 - DOMINGO V. AUSTRIA v. ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-20708 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: FELIMON TSE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20527 August 31, 1967 - VICENTE Y. REALIZA v. GASPAR DUARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22684 August 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC. v. WOODWORKS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22810 August 31, 1967 - FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.