Case Digest (G.R. No. 154878)
Facts:
Carolyn M. Garcia v. Rica Marie S. Thio, G.R. No. 154878, March 16, 2007, Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Carolyn M. Garcia; respondent is Rica Marie S. Thio.In February and June 1995 petitioner issued two crossed checks: a Metrobank check dated February 24, 1995 for US$100,000 (payable to Marilou Santiago) and a CityTrust check dated June 29, 1995 for P500,000 (also payable to Marilou Santiago). Petitioner delivered these checks to respondent. Thereafter respondent issued periodic payments to petitioner: for the US$100,000 arrangement respondent paid the peso equivalent of US$3,000 monthly (postdated checks or cash replacements on March 24, April 26, June 26 and July 26, 1995 and related entries); for the P500,000 arrangement respondent issued checks of P20,000 monthly for August–November 1995. Petitioner alleged these transactions were loans to respondent (US$100,000 at 3% monthly, maturing October 26, 1995; P500,000 at 4% monthly, maturing November 5, 1995) and that respondent defaulted on principal when the obligations matured.
Respondent denied being the borrower, contending petitioner actually lent the money to Marilou Santiago and had respondent merely deliver the crossed checks to Santiago. Respondent maintained her P76,000 and P20,000 payments were accommodations to permit Santiago to replace those checks with cash; she asserted she never received the loan proceeds.
Petitioner filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 58 (Civil Case No. 96‑266) on February 22, 1996 for sums of money and damages. In a decision dated February 28, 1997, the RTC found in favor of petitioner, holding that respondent borrowed US$100,000 and P500,000 and awarding principal with the contractual monthly interests, P100,000 attorney’s fees and P50,000 actual damages; respondent’s counterclaim was dismissed.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (Third Division) in a decision dated June 19, 2002 (and an August 20, 2002 resolution) reversed the RTC, holding there was no loan contract between petitioner and respondent because the checks were crossed and payable to a third party (Santiago), and the mere receipt of crossed checks by respondent did not constitute delivery of the loan proceeds to her.
Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court via a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing inter alia that the CA and RTC reached contradictory factual findings on...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the contract of loan was perfected as to respondent despite delivery of crossed checks payable to a third party.
- Whether respondent’s payments of periodic amounts to petitioner operate as evidence (or estoppel) supporting the existence of a loan.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to the contractual monthly interest in the absence of a written stipulation, and from what date legal interest should run.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly deleted the RTC’s a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)