Title
Loria vs. Munoz, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 187240
Decision Date
Oct 15, 2014
Loria failed to subcontract Muñoz after receiving P2M for a river-dredging project. SC ruled Loria liable for unjust enrichment, ordering repayment with interest.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 187240)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Pre-contractual Engagement and Advance
    • Ludolfo P. Muñoz, Jr. (Muñoz) engaged in construction under “Ludolfo P. Muñoz, Jr. Construction.” In August 2000, Carlos A. Loria (Loria) approached Muñoz to advance ₱2,000,000.00 for a supposed subcontract (20% share of a ₱50,000,000.00 river-dredging project in Guinobatan). Loria represented that Sunwest Construction (Elizaldy Co.) would be the lowest bidder and would subcontract the work to Muñoz.
    • On October 2, 2000, Muñoz instructed Allied Bank to release ₱3,000,000.00 from his joint account to Grace delos Santos, from whom Loria obtained the funds. Four days later, ₱1,800,000.00 was returned to Muñoz, leaving a balance of ₱1,200,000.00 with Loria. On January 10, 2001, Loria collected the remaining ₱800,000.00. After accounting for personal loans, Muñoz issued a check for ₱481,800.00, which Loria acknowledged receiving—making the total advance to Loria ₱2,000,000.00.
  • Project Outcome and Civil–Criminal Proceedings
    • The river-dredging project was awarded to Sunwest via public bidding. Sunwest completed the work without subcontracting to Muñoz. Muñoz demanded return of his ₱2,000,000.00; Loria refused.
    • Muñoz first filed estafa charges against Loria and Elizaldy Co., which the Municipal Trial Court dismissed for lack of probable cause. He then filed a civil complaint for sum of money and damages with the RTC Branch 6 of Legazpi City.
  • Trial Court and Appellate Decisions
    • RTC (January 30, 2004) found that Loria received ₱2,000,000.00 without performing the subcontracted work, thus unjustly enriching himself. The RTC ordered return of ₱2,000,000.00 with 12% interest from complaint filing, ₱100,000.00 attorney’s fees, ₱25,000.00 litigation expenses, and ₱25,000.00 exemplary damages.
    • CA (October 23, 2008) affirmed the RTC’s factual findings on the ₱2,000,000.00 advance (supported by a check voucher in evidence) and the application of unjust enrichment. It deleted attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. CA’s resolution denying reconsideration was issued March 12, 2009.
    • Loria petitioned to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 certiorari, contesting both the factual finding of receipt and the application of unjust enrichment/in pari delicto doctrines. A joint motion to compromise was denied (Dec. 15, 2010).

Issues:

  • Whether Loria initially received ₱3,000,000.00 from Grace delos Santos, as alleged by Muñoz.
  • Whether Loria is liable to return ₱2,000,000.00 to Muñoz under the principle of unjust enrichment.

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.