Case Digest (A.C. No. 1162, 1163, 1164)
Facts:
In Ma. Julieta B. Bendecio and Merlyn MascariAas v. Virginia B. Bautista (G.R. No. 242087, December 7, 2021), respondent Virginia Bautista lent her niece Ma. Julieta Bendecio ₱400,000 on February 5, 2013, ₱200,000 on February 7, 2013, and ₱500,000 on February 15, 2013—totaling ₱1,100,000—payable in May 2013 with 8% monthly interest. When maturity arrived, Bendecio purportedly arranged for her business partner Merlyn MascariAas to deposit a manager’s check into Bautista’s BDO account, but this did not occur. MascariAas instead executed a promissory note dated August 23, 2013, promising to pay the same amount with identical interest, yet neither principal nor interest was remitted despite oral demands and a September 5, 2013 demand letter. On September 25, 2013, Bautista filed Civil Case No. 13-1126 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 59, for collection of sum of money and damages. Bendecio asserted that novation had extinguished her obligation when MascariAasCase Digest (A.C. No. 1162, 1163, 1164)
Facts:
- Loan Transaction and Subsequent Events
- On February 5, 7, and 15, 2013, respondent Virginia Bautista lent her niece Ma. Julieta Bendecio a total of ₱1,100,000.00, payable in May 2013 with 8% monthly interest.
- In May 2013, Bendecio informed Bautista that Merlyn MascariAas would pay the loan by depositing a manager’s check. The check was not delivered; instead, MascariAas executed a promissory note dated August 23, 2013, for ₱1,100,000.00 at the same 8% monthly rate. No payment followed despite demand.
- Procedural History
- Bautista filed a collection suit in the RTC, Branch 59, Makati City on September 25, 2013. Bendecio and MascariAas defended on grounds of novation (substitution of debtor) and alleged payment (returned checks).
- On May 4, 2017, the RTC ruled for Bautista: defendants jointly and solidarily liable for ₱1,100,000.00 plus 12% per annum interest from demand, ₱100,000.00 moral damages, ₱100,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs.
- On September 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in CA-GR CV No. 109378.
- Petition for Review
- On November 8, 2018, Bendecio and MascariAas filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, reiterating that novation and payment extinguished Bendecio’s obligation.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Bendecio and MascariAas jointly and solidarily liable for the ₱1,100,000.00 loan.
- Whether the loan obligation was extinguished by novation through MascariAas’s substitution as debtor.
- Whether the delivery and return of checks operated as payment.
- Whether the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees was proper.
- What interest rates should apply to the monetary award.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)