Title
Supreme Court
Malbarosa vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 125761
Decision Date
Apr 30, 2003
Malbarosa, former SEADC officer, disputed incentive compensation via car transfer; no valid contract formed due to uncommunicated acceptance and SEADC's timely withdrawal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125761)

Factual Background

– January 8, 1990: Malbarosa tenders resignation effective February 28, 1990, and requests his 1989 incentive compensation.
– February 5, 1990: Da Costa estimates compensation at ~P395,000.

Offer and Attempted Acceptance

– March 14, 1990: SEADC, via Valero, offers incentive compensation of P251,057.67 to be satisfied by transfer of (a) a 1982 Mitsubishi Gallant Super Saloon valued at P220,000 and (b) membership shares in Architectural Center, Inc. worth ~P60,000. Acceptance was to be indicated by signature and date on the offer letter.
– March 16, 1990: Da Costa delivers the original offer. Petitioner, disagreeing with the amount, refuses to sign and marks the duplicate “original for review purposes.”

Withdrawal of Offer and Replevin Action

– April 3, 1990: SEADC Board authorizes recovery of the vehicle.
– April 4, 1990: Philtectic Corporation, as agent, withdraws the March 14 offer and demands return of the car and membership certificate within 24 hours.
– April 7, 1990: Malbarosa claims he accepted the offer on March 28 and encloses a signed copy.
– April 1990: SEADC files a complaint for replevin of the vehicle, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Trial Court Proceedings

– May 8, 1990: Writ of replevin issued; vehicle seized.
– May 15, 1990: Petitioner regains possession by posting counterbond.

Trial Court Decision and Amendment

– July 28, 1992: RTC Pasig finds no perfected contract for lack of timely acceptance. Orders Malbarosa to deliver the vehicle or pay P220,000, plus P50,000 attorney’s fees and costs.
– October 10, 1992 (amended): Adds lease rentals of P1,000/day from May 8, 1990 until delivery, and enforcement of the counterbond.

Court of Appeals Decision

– February 8, 1996: Affirms the trial court, modifying rental period to run from finality of the decision until actual delivery.

Issues on Certiorari

  1. Whether petitioner validly accepted the March 14, 1990 offer;
  2. Whether respondent effectively withdrew the offer.

Supreme Court Ruling on Acceptance

– Citing Articles 1318–1320, Civil Code (1987 Constitution applies): a contract requires concurrence of offer and acceptance.
– Acceptance must be absolute, unconditional, in the manner prescribed, and communicated to the offeror before any withdrawal.
– Petitioner neither signed the original offer nor communicated acceptance before April 4 withdrawal. His signature on March 28 copy reached SEADC only on April 7, after withdrawal. No contract



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.