Gamboa v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Augusto G. Gamboa deposited P16,450.00 with the Manila Court of First Instance, requesting that respondent Agustin A. Cancio be compelled to accept it as full settlement of Cancio's share in Gamboa's Manila, Inc. Procedural History: Cancio responded, stating his share was worth at least P51,256.45 and that Gamboa had agreed to pay this amount, but expressed willingness to accept the P16,450.00 as partial payment. Before Cancio filed his answer, Gamboa moved to withdraw the deposited sum, which the court granted. After Cancio filed his answer and learned of the withdrawal, he moved for reconsideration, arguing he was not notified and had a right to be heard. The court reversed its earlier order and directed Gamboa to re-deposit the money. The Petition: Gamboa filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the order for re-deposit as a grave abuse of discretion and plain legal error, citing Article 1260 of the Civil Code, which allows the debtor to withdraw the deposited sum before acceptance by the creditor or judicial declaration of proper consignation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion and plain legal error in ordering the re-deposit of the consigned amount after the debtor had already withdrawn it pursuant to Article 1260 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, revoking the order requiring the re-deposit of the money. The Court held that Article 1260 of the Civil Code clearly grants the debtor the right to withdraw the deposited amount at any time before the creditor accepts it or before a judicial declaration that the consignation has been properly made. The Court found that Cancio's statement was practically a rejection of the offer of payment, rendering the withdrawal permissible.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion and plain legal error in ordering the re-deposit of the consigned amount. The Court's reasoning was anchored on Article 1260 of the Civil Code, which provides that "Before the creditor has accepted the consignation, or before a judicial declaration that the consignation has been properly made, the debtor may withdraw the thing or the sum deposited, allowing the obligation to remain in force." The Court emphasized that this right of withdrawal is clear in the present case because the statement of the creditor, Agustin A. Cancio, came late and, more importantly, his acceptance was partial. A partial acceptance is legally considered a rejection of the offer of payment in full, which was the basis of the consignation. Therefore, Gamboa was entitled to withdraw the P16,450.00 he had deposited. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the effect of failure to give the creditor notice of the withdrawal, as Cancio's statement effectively nullified the consignation by not being a full acceptance.
Main Doctrine
Article 1260 of the Civil Code explicitly grants the debtor the right to withdraw the sum deposited in consignation at any time before the creditor accepts it or before a judicial declaration that the consignation has been properly made. This right remains even if the creditor's statement of acceptance is partial or amounts to a rejection of the offer, as the obligation is considered to remain in force until such acceptance or declaration.