Case Digest (G.R. No. 204264)
Facts:
Jennefer Figuera, as Substituted by Enhance Visa Services, Inc., represented by Ma. Eden R. Dumont v. Maria Remedios Ang, G.R. No. 204264, June 29, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Maria Remedios Ang owned a sole proprietorship called Enhance Immigration and Documentation Consultants (EIDC). On December 16, 2004 Ang executed a Deed of Assignment of Business Rights assigning all her business rights in EIDC to Jennefer Figuera for a consideration of P150,000.00; the Deed also provided that Ang would pay electricity, telephone, office rental and employees’ salaries up to December 2004.
After the assignment, Figuera — without Ang’s consent — paid outstanding utility and related bills amounting to P107,903.21 to prevent interruption of services and other business consequences. On January 17, 2005, Figuera tendered to Ang only P42,096.79, having deducted the payments she had made from the P150,000.00 consideration. Ang refused the payment.
Figuera filed a complaint for specific performance with consignation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, and consigned P42,096.79 to the RTC. Ang answered that the full P150,000.00 remained due and that she could not be compelled to accept a lesser amount. On May 19, 2005, Figuera conveyed her rights and causes of action in favor of Enhance Visa Services, Inc. (EVSI), which was later permitted to substitute as plaintiff.
The RTC rendered judgment for Ang in a decision dated December 28, 2007, holding that the Deed unambiguously obliged Ang to pay the December 2004 bills and that Figuera’s unilateral payment did not authorize a deduction from the agreed consideration; therefore the tender and consignation were invalid. Figuera appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In CA-G.R. CV No. 02480, the CA affirmed the RTC in a June 29, 2012 decision, ruling there was nothing in the Deed permitting Figuera to pay the bills and deduct the amounts, that Figuera failed to prove Ang’s consent, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Court consider and resolve Figuera’s claims of legal subrogation and legal compensation although they were raised for the first time on appeal?
- Did legal subrogation occur such that Figuera was subrogated to the rights of Ang’s creditors?
- Did legal compensation operate to extinguish mutual obligations between Ang and Figuera to the extent of P107,903.21?
- Was Figuera’s tender of P42,096.79 and its consignation valid...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)