G.R. No. 156846 - Pabugais vs. Sahijwani

On December 3, 1993, petitioner Teddy G. Pabugais agreed to sell respondent Dave P. Sahijwani a 1,239-sqm lot in Forbes Park, Makati, for ₱15,487,500.00. Respondent paid ₱600,000.00 as option/reservation fee and undertook to pay the ₱14,887,500.00 balance within 60 days, upon delivery of title, tax clearances, and homeowners’ association dues clearance.
The contract provided that if respondent failed to pay the balance on time, the ₱600,000.00 would be forfeited; and if petitioner failed to deliver the required documents, he must return the ₱600,000.00 with 18% per annum interest.

Petitioner did not deliver the documents. He sought to comply by returning the ₱600,000.00 via bank check, which was dishonored. He then prepared a manager’s check for ₱672,900.00 (₱600,000.00 + 18% interest to August 3, 1994) and twice attempted tender through respondent’s counsel (August 3 and August 8, 1994), both allegedly refused.
Failing acceptance, petitioner notified respondent of consignation and, on August 15, 1994, filed a complaint for consignation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

Respondent’s counsel denied receiving the manager’s check and contended the tender was invalid for insufficiency and lack of promised additional penalties. On November 29, 1996, the RTC declared the consignation invalid for failure to prove valid tender and refusal, ruled the manager’s check was not legal tender, and ordered petitioner to pay ₱600,000.00 plus 18% interest, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). His original counsel died and was replaced by Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr. On December 20, 2001, petitioner executed a Deed of Assignment assigning part of the consigned ₱672,900.00 to Atty. De Guzman as fees. Petitioner then moved to withdraw the consigned funds; Atty. De Guzman moved to intervene for their release to him.

In April 2002, the CA denied withdrawal, affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications to moral damages and attorney’s fees.
On reconsideration, the CA’s January 16, 2003 Amended Decision declared the ₱672,900.00 consignation valid, extinguished petitioner’s obligation under paragraph 5 of the Agreement and Undertaking, and ordered that neither party recover costs.

Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, disputing (a) the CA’s validation of consignation and (b) the denial of his right to withdraw the consigned amount prior to acceptance or judicial confirmation.

Was there a valid consignation by petitioner of the ₱672,900.00?
Can petitioner withdraw the consigned amount as a matter of right before acceptance or judicial confirmation?