Title
Ong vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 75819
Decision Date
Sep 8, 1989
Fermin Ong borrowed P160,000 from Mariano Ong, issued post-dated checks, and deposited zippers. Courts ruled Fermin owed P160,000; zippers were not loan security, and no valid offset existed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75819)

Indebtedness and Secured Payment

Fermin admits to borrowing P160,000.00, secured by three post-dated checks totaling the same amount, issued against his bank account. The checks are as follows: Check No. 870585 (P50,000.00), Check No. 908254 (P10,000.00), and Check No. 887380 (P100,000.00). Subsequently, Fermin made a partial payment of P40,000.00 with a fourth check, reducing his alleged debt to P120,000.00. Furthermore, Fermin asserts that he stored zippers valued at P181,000.00 in Mariano's warehouse, which he claims were not intended as collateral for the loan.

Dispute Over Payments and Set-Off Claims

Mariano filed a lawsuit seeking full repayment of the loan, to which Fermin responded by disputing his liability and claiming an offset against an unrelated debt owed to him by Mariano for the transfer of rights to stalls in the Yangco Market. The courts examined the legitimacy of these claims, with Fermin's assertion being met with skepticism by Mariano, who later revised his claims about the details of the loan.

Judicial Findings and Factual Determinations

The trial court and the Court of Appeals issued conflicting findings regarding the nature and amount of the debt. The Supreme Court had to clarify the situation based on the existing records and the applicable law. It found that the total of the post-dated checks remained at P160,000.00, matching Mariano's claim of Fermin's outstanding loan. The lack of evidence regarding the funding of the checks and the absence of any receipts for alleged partial payments further weakened Fermin's assertions.

Assessment of Zipper Storage and Set-Off Argument

Fermin's claims about the zippers evolved throughout the case, initially deeming them worthless, yet later insisting on their return as part of repaying his debt. Mariano’s denial of withholding these items was scrutinized but ultimately deemed plausible given the circumstances. The court noted that Mariano had no obligation to return the zippers to Fermin under the assumption presented.

Legal Framework and Compensation Claims

Fermin also attempted to invoke compensation as a means to offset his debt by citi

...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.