Michael Anthony L. Leachon
Obligation and Contracts Case Digests
PNB VS CA 315 SCRA 309
* October 23, 1990 Lily S. Pujol opened an account with the petitioner PNB(Mandaluyong branch.) She applied for a “combo account” under her business name “Pujol Trading.” This account is a combination of a savings and current account wherein if there are insufficient funds in the current account of the owner then the funds of the savings fund will be used. PNB thereafter, issued a passbook with the words: “Combo Deposit Plan” in the cover. * On October 23, 1990 Lily issued a check worth 30,000 php to her daughter in law, Dr. Charisse M. Pujol. Even though she had sufficient funds in her saving account the bank dishonored the check for insufficiency of funds and charger her 250php as penalty. * On October 24, 1990 Lily again issued another check (she still has sufficient funds) amounting to 30000 php to her daughter Ms. Venus P. De Ocampo. The bank again dishonored the check and charged her a penalty of 250 php. * On November 4, 1990 realizing their mistake petitioner PNB accepted the 2nd check and recredited the 250php penalty to her account. * Respondent filed a complaint for moral and exemplary damages to RTC of Pasig because of dishonoring her checks even if she had sufficient money. * On September 27, 1994 the RTC issued a decision ordering PNB to pay her moral damages of 100000php and 20000php for attorney fees. * Petitioner erred and argued that at that time she was missing some important documents that is why her account was not yet activated. ISSUES:
* W/N PNB is liable for damages.
* It is immaterial. The facts that PNB gave her a passbook with the words “Combo Deposit Account” mislead her to believe that her account was already active. * The courts said that the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care whether such accounts consists only of a few hundred or million pesos. * Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. * Given the social standing of the respondent the award for damages is deemed just. * WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. Award of 100000php for moral damages and 20000php for attorney’s fees affirmed by RTC of Pasig. In favor of private respondent Lily S. Pujol. AFFIRMED Michael Anthony L. Leachon
Obligation and Contracts Case Digests
UP vs Delos Angeles 35 SCRA 102
* November 2, 1960 UP and ALUMCO entered into a logging agreement whereby ALUMCO was granted exclusive authority to cut, collect and remove timber from the Land Grant from date of start of agreement until December 31, 1965, extendable to a 5 years by mutual agreement. * December 8, 1964 ALUMCO had an unsettled balance of 219,362.94php. Despite repeated demands of UP they still did not pay. So UP sent a notice to rescind the logging agreement. * ALUMCO in return issued and “Acknowledgement of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments.” Whereby it was approved by UP President.
* The document basically states the incase payments are not sufficient to liquidate indebtedness, the balance outstanding after the payments have been made shall be paid by the debtor no later than June 30, 1965 * In the instance the debtor cannot comply with the requirements it has come to an agreement that the Logging Contract shall be rescinded without the necessity of a judicial suit. * On July 19, 1965 due to still unpaid account UP informed ALUMCO that it is rescinding their contracts and they have already taking steps to have another concessionaire take over the project. * ALUMCO filed a petition to enjoin UP from bidding. Lower courts approved their appeal.
* W/N UP can rescind its contract with ALUMCO without judicial proceedings. DECISION:
* YES. Art 1191.
* The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document