Case Digest (G.R. No. 204264) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In JENNEFER FIGUERA, as substituted by Enhance Visa Services, Inc., represented by Ma. Eden R. Dumont, petitioner, versus MARIA REMEDIOS ANG, respondent, the latter owned the sole proprietorship “Enhance Immigration and Documentation Consultants” (EIDC). On December 16, 2004 in Cebu City, Ang executed a Deed of Assignment of Business Rights conveying all business rights over EIDC to Figuera for ₱150,000, expressly obliging Ang to settle utility bills, office rentals, and salaries up to December 2004. Unbeknownst to Ang, Figuera paid ₱107,903.21 in outstanding bills and, on January 17, 2005, tendered the balance of ₱42,096.79, deducting her disbursement from the agreed price. Ang refused both payment and its formal tender. Figuera thereupon filed for specific performance and consignation of ₱42,096.79 before RTC Branch 9, Cebu City, which on December 28, 2007 ruled for Ang, holding that Figuera must tender the full ₱150,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) in Cebu City, via decision Case Digest (G.R. No. 204264) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Deed of Assignment
- Maria Remedios Ang, sole proprietor of “Enhance Immigration and Documentation Consultants” (EIDC), executed a Deed of Assignment of Business Rights on December 16, 2004.
- Under the Deed, Ang assigned all her rights in EIDC to Jennefer Figuera for a consideration of ₱150,000.00, with Ang agreeing to pay electricity, telephone, office rentals, and employee salaries through December 2004.
- Payment, Tender and Consignation
- Without Ang’s consent, Figuera settled utility bills totaling ₱107,903.21 as of December 2004, then on January 17, 2005 tendered the balance of ₱42,096.79 (₱150,000.00 − ₱107,903.21) to Ang, who refused to accept it.
- Figuera filed a complaint for specific performance and consignation of the ₱42,096.79 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City.
- Procedural History
- RTC Decision (December 28, 2007): Held that Figuera must tender the full ₱150,000.00 as agreed, ruled against the validity of her tender and consignation, and dismissed her complaint.
- Court of Appeals Decision (June 29, 2012) and Resolution (September 28, 2012): Affirmed the RTC, holding no contractual right to deduct utility payments without Ang’s consent and that the ₱42,096.79 was an insufficient tender.
Issues:
- Whether Jennefer Figuera validly tendered payment and effected consignation of the balance due under the Deed of Assignment.
- Whether Figuera’s payment of Ang’s overdue utility bills effected legal subrogation to the rights of Ang’s creditors and legal compensation, thereby reducing her obligation under the Deed by ₱107,903.21.
- Whether issues of legal subrogation and compensation, raised for the first time on appeal, may be entertained under Rule 45.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)