Title
Malonzo vs. Galang
Case
G.R. No. L-13851
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1960
A loan dispute between Gregoria Galang and Deogracias Malonzo leads to a lawsuit, with the Supreme Court ultimately denying the claim for compensatory and moral damages but upholding the award of attorney's fees.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13851)

Detailed and Comprehensive Digest of Malonzo v. Galang

Facts:

  • The case involves a loan dispute between Deogracias F. Malonzo (petitioner) and Gregoria T. Galang and her husband Francisco G. Galang (respondents).
  • On October 5, 1946, Gregoria received a loan of P5,000.00 from Malonzo, cashed at the National City Bank of New York, Manila.
  • On April 17, 1947, Francisco received a loan of P14,968.00 from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, endorsed to Malonzo.
  • Malonzo cashed the check on April 25, 1947, and applied P10,000.00 to Francisco's fishing venture share, with the remaining P4,968.00 allegedly settling Gregoria's earlier loan.
  • Malonzo claimed he returned the P4,968.00 to Francisco, partly in cash and partly via a check for P3,968.00 dated May 19, 1947.
  • Believing the loan remained unpaid, Malonzo sued the Galang spouses on August 27, 1955, for the loan amount plus interest and attorney's fees.
  • The trial court found in favor of the Galangs, dismissing Malonzo's complaint as unfounded and awarding them P500.00 in compensatory and moral damages, and P1,000.00 in attorney's fees.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, prompting Malonzo to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court modified the decision by eliminating the award of compensatory and moral damages to the respondents.
  • The Supre...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The award of attorney's fees was deemed correct and proper under Article 2208, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code, which allows for the recovery of attorney's fees in clearly unfounded civil actions.
  • Compensatory damages must be duly proved and cannot be presumed; the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not provide specific facts to measure...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.