Case Digest (G.R. No. 205578) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Georgia Osmeña-Jalandoni v. Carmen A. Encomienda, petitioner Georgia Osmeña-Jalandoni, scion of a prominent Iloilo family, and respondent Carmen A. Encomienda, a real estate client turned friend, met on October 24, 1995, in Cebu. Over the next eight months, Encomienda advanced or directly paid service providers a total of ₱3,245,836.02 and US$6,638.20 at Jalandoni’s behest, ostensibly to fund search operations for Jalandoni’s allegedly kidnaped children and cover household and travel expenses. On April 1 and May 26, 1997, fellow loans of ₱1,000,000.00 and ₱900,000.00 were given with promises of future repayment. After Jalandoni’s return to Cebu on July 14, 1997, she neither acknowledged nor repaid these advances. Despite barangay conciliation—during which Jalandoni allegedly admitted the borrowings—no settlement was reached. On January 9, 2006, the Cebu RTC dismissed Encomienda’s complaint for lack of evidence. On March 29, 2012, the CA reversed, ordering Jalandoni to pay bac Case Digest (G.R. No. 205578) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Procedural History
- Carmen A. Encomienda (plaintiff) filed a sum of money claim against Georgia Osmeña-Jalandoni (defendant) before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 57, which on January 9, 2006 dismissed the complaint.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, in CA-G.R. CV No. 01339, reversed the RTC by Decision dated March 29, 2012 and awarded Encomienda P3,245,836.02 and US$6,638.20, plus 12% legal interest from August 14, 1997 and P100,000.00 attorney’s fees; its Resolution of December 19, 2012 denied reconsideration.
- Osmeña-Jalandoni elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising only whether Encomienda was entitled to reimbursement.
- Factual Background
- Encomienda and Jalandoni became close friends after meeting in Cebu in October 1995, Jalandoni being a real-estate broker and daughter of a prominent political family.
- From March through October 1997, at Jalandoni’s request, Encomienda delivered cash and paid various bills and services for Jalandoni and her household through sealed envelopes and direct payments to third parties. These expenses—detailed in the CA decision—totaled P3,245,836.02 and US$6,638.20 and included publication fees, reproduction of photographs, travel and allowances, salaries of household staff and security guards, utility and communication bills, purchases of phones and cabinets, ritual and blessing fees, and petty cash.
- On April 1, 1997 and May 26, 1997, Jalandoni also borrowed P1,000,000.00 and an additional P900,000.00, promising repayment upon her bank funds’ maturity. By July 14, 1997, she returned to Cebu without settling any obligation. Despite extrajudicial demands and a barangay conciliation during which she admitted the loans and promised repayment, Jalandoni failed to pay, prompting Encomienda to file the complaint impleading Jalandoni’s husband as a necessary party.
Issues:
- Whether Encomienda is entitled to reimbursement of the amounts she defrayed for Jalandoni.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)