SIGA-AN - v - VILLANUEVA
G.R. 173227, January 20, 2009 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Facts:
1. In 1998, respondent
Alicia Villanueva filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner
Sebastian Siga-an before the Las Pinas City, RTC. she was a businesswoman
engaged in supplying office materials and equipments to the Philippine Navy
Office (PNO), while petitioner was a military officer and comptroller of the
PNO.
2. Respondent claimed
that in 1992, petitioner approached her inside the PNO and offered to loan her
the amount of P540,000.00. Since she needed capital for her
business transactions with the PNO, she accepted. The loan agreement
was not reduced in writing. Also, there was no stipulation as to the
payment of interest for the loan.
4. Petitioner told her
that since she paid a total amount of P700,000.00 for the P540,000.00
worth of loan, the excess amount of P160,000.00 would be applied as
interest for the loan. Not satisfied with the amount applied as interest,
petitioner threatened to block or disapprove her transactions with the PNO if
she would not comply with his demand for additional payments. respondent
conceded.
5. resondent asked
petitioner for receipt for the payments but petitioner told her that it was not
necessary.
6. respondent consulted
a lawyer regarding the propriety of paying interest on the loan despite absence
of agreement to that effect. Her lawyer told her that petitioner could not
validly collect interest on the loan because there was no agreement between her
and petitioner regarding payment of interest. she sent a demand letter to
petitioner asking for the return of the excess amount of P660,000.00.
7. Petitioner, despite receipt of the demand
letter, ignored her claim for reimbursement.
8. Respondent prayed
that the RTC render judgment ordering petitioner to pay respondent.
9. In his answer to the
complaint, petitioner denied that he offered a loan to respondent. He
averred that in 1992, respondent approached and asked him if he could grant her
a loan, as she needed money to finance her business venture with the PNO.
10. Upon his approval of
respondents request for restructuring of the loan, respondent executed a
promissory note wherein she admitted having borrowed an amount of P1,240,000.00,
inclusive of interest. Petitioner insisted that there was no overpayment.
11. RTC held that
respondent made an overpayment of her loan obligation to petitioner and that
the latter should refund the excess amount to the former.
12. Petitioner appealed
to the Court of Appeals. It affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.
13. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of the appellate courts decision but was denied.
14. Hence, petitioner lodged the instant petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC
and CA erred in ruling that no interest was due to petitioner.
2. Whether or not the RTC
and CA erred in applying the principle of solutio indebiti.
Ruling:
1. No. No interest was
due to petitioner.
Monetary interest
|
Compensatory interest
|
Interest is a compensation fixed by the parties for the use or
forbearance of money.
|
Interest may also be imposed by law
or by courts as penalty or indemnity for damages. The right to interest
arises only by virtue of a contract or by virtue of damages for delay or failure
to pay the principal loan on which interest is demanded.
|
- Article 1956 of the
Civil Code refers to monetary interest, mandates that no interest shall be due
unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. allowed only if:
(1) there was an express stipulation for
the payment of interest; and
(2) the agreement for
the payment of interest was reduced in writing.
- collection of
interest without any stipulation therefor in writing is prohibited by law.
- Petitioner presented
a handwritten promissory note however, it was petitioner who made a promissory
note and respondent was told to copy it in her own handwriting; respondent did
not really consent to the payment of interest for the loan. it cannot be
gainfully said that such promissory note pertains to an express stipulation of
interest or written agreement of interest on the loan between petitioner and
respondent.
- RTC did not make a
ruling therein that petitioner and respondent agreed on the payment of interest
at the rate of 7% for the loan. The RTC clearly stated that although
petitioner and respondent entered into a valid oral contract of loan amounting
to P540,000.00, they, nonetheless, never intended the payment of
interest thereon.
- There are instances
in which an interest may be imposed even in the absence of express stipulation,
verbal or written, regarding payment of interest.
Article 2209 of the
Civil Code - if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money,
and the debtor incurs delay, a legal interest of 12% per annum may be imposed
as indemnity for damages if no stipulation on the payment of interest was
agreed upon.
Article 2212 of the
Civil Code - interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded, although the obligation may be silent on this point.
- the interest under
these two instances may be imposed only as a penalty or damages for breach of contractual obligations. It
cannot be charged as a compensation for the use or forbearance of money.
- the two instances apply only to
compensatory interest and not to monetary interest. The case at bar involves
petitioners claim for monetary interest.
2. No. Principle of
solution indebiti properly applied.
- Article 1960 of the
Civil Code - if the borrower of loan pays interest when there has been no
stipulation therefor, the provisions of the Civil Code concerning solution
indebiti shall be applied.
- Article 2154 of the
Civil Code - if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and
it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it
arises.
- a creditor-debtor
relationship is created under a quasi-contract whereby the payor becomes the
creditor who then has the right to demand the return of payment made by mistake,
and the person who has no right to receive such payment becomes obligated to
return the same.
- no one shall enrich
himself unjustly at the expense of another.
- The principle
of solutio indebiti applies where:
(1) a payment is made
when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to
pay, and the person who received the payment; and
(2) the payment is
made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause. We
have held that the principle of solutio indebiti applies in
case of erroneous payment of undue interest.
- It was duly
established that respondent paid interest to petitioner. Respondent was
under no duty to make such payment because there was no express stipulation in
writing to that effect. There was no binding relation between petitioner
and respondent as regards the payment of interest. The payment was clearly
a mistake. Since petitioner received something when there was no right to
demand it, he has an obligation to return it.
