Title
Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil. Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 149420
Decision Date
Oct 8, 2003
Petitioner assigned non-existent credit to respondent, breaching warranty; obligation not extinguished. SC affirmed CA ruling, ordering payment with interest.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149420)

Facts:

  • Contractual Transaction
    • On February 22, 1990, petitioner Sonny L. Lo (doing business as San’s Enterprises) ordered steel scaffoldings worth ₱540,425.80 from respondent KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.
    • Petitioner paid a downpayment of ₱150,000.00 and agreed to settle the balance in ten monthly installments; respondent delivered the scaffoldings.
  • Default and Deed of Assignment
    • Petitioner paid only the first two installments, then defaulted due to financial difficulties despite oral and written demands by respondent.
    • On October 11, 1990, parties executed a Deed of Assignment whereby petitioner assigned his receivables from Jomero Realty Corporation amounting to ₱335,462.14 in partial payment (dación en pago). The deed included:
      • A warranty of the existence and legality of the assigned credit at the time of sale.
      • An undertaking by petitioner to perform all further acts reasonably necessary to enable respondent to collect the assigned receivables.
  • Collection Efforts and Judicial History
    • Respondent’s agent sought payment from Jomero Realty Corporation, which refused to honor the assignment, claiming petitioner still owed it money.
    • Respondent then demanded payment from petitioner (November 26, 1990); upon refusal, respondent filed suit for recovery of a sum of money (RTC Makati, Civil Case No. 91-074). Trial court (Aug. 25, 1994) dismissed the complaint, holding that the assignment extinguished petitioner’s obligation.
    • Court of Appeals (Apr. 19, 2001) reversed and ordered petitioner to pay ₱335,462.14 with 6% legal interest from January 10, 1991, plus attorney’s fees (10% of the amount due). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Deed of Assignment null and void for lack of object based on hearsay.
  • Whether the Deed of Assignment extinguished petitioner’s obligation to respondent, or whether petitioner breached his warranty under the deed.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and in awarding legal interest and attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.