Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13125)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13125)
Facts:
Pedro C. Camus v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Eduardo D. Enriquez, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and Leon G. Moya, G.R. No. L-13125, promulgated February 13, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.On July 13, 1956, Leon G. Moya (plaintiff/appellee) sued Pedro C. Camus (defendant/appellant) and Luzon Surety Co., Inc. (co-defendant) in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for payment of a promissory note for P2,500 allegedly signed by Camus and guaranteed by a surety bond. At trial Camus did not appear; the trial court heard plaintiff’s evidence and rendered judgment condemning the defendants jointly and severally to pay the amount claimed.
Camus moved for reconsideration and a new trial, asserting among other defenses that the indebtedness was tainted by usury; the trial court denied both motions. Camus then filed notice of appeal, the record on appeal, and an appeal bond, but the trial court disallowed the appeal on the ground that his motion for reconsideration and new trial was pro forma. Camus petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel allowance of his appeal, but the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s disallowance.
Camus brought the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari. After appellant’s brief was filed, appellee Moya moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Luzon Surety Co., Inc. had paid the judgment in his favor during the pendency of the proceedings, rendering the appeal academic; Moya waived filing an appellee’s brief. The Supreme Court deferred consideration until deliberation but, upon review, agreed with appellee and dismissed the appeal as moot.
In disposing of the case the Court treated the payment by the surety as extinguishing the joint obligation under Article 1217, New Civil Code, rejected Camus’s arguments that the payment was premature or that substitution of the surety as plaintiff could be ordered, and noted that any controversy over usury or overpayment was a matter solely among the co-debtors. The Court also observed that Camus had not attached a copy of his motion for new trial to his petition, preventing review of the trial court’s characterization of that motion as pro forma. The judgment imposed costs against appellant Camus.
Issues:
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed as academic/moot because the co-debtor paid the judgment and thereby extinguished the obligation.
- Whether the payment by the co-debtor was premature and therefore did not extinguish the principal obligation.
- Whether the Court may order substitution of the payor surety as plaintiff to avoid multiplicity of suits.
- Whether appellant can maintain an action to recover alleged usurious interest from appellee despite nonpayment of the debt.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)