Banco Filipino v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Antonio and Elsie Diaz obtained a loan from Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BFPMB), which was later restructured to P3,163,000.00 at 21% per annum, secured by real estate mortgage. The respondents defaulted in payment starting October 1986. They filed a complaint for declaration of unconscionable interest rates, which was affirmed by the CA. Subsequently, they filed another complaint for consignation, tendering P1,034,600.00 as full payment. The RTC ruled in their favor, declaring the obligation paid. However, the CA reversed this, finding no valid consignation due to insufficient amount (lack of accrued interest) and error in denying BFPMB's motion to lift default. Procedural History: The RTC of Makati City denied the respondents' motion to withdraw their deposit of P1,034,600.00, ruling that the dismissal of their consignation complaint did not absolve them from applying the deposit to the outstanding obligation. The CA reversed the RTC's orders, allowing the withdrawal based on Article 1260 of the Civil Code, stating that BFPMB had not accepted the consignation and that the respondents had the unilateral right to withdraw. The Petition: BFPMB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision allowing the withdrawal of the deposit, arguing that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that the consignation was not valid, thus the deposit could be applied to the outstanding obligation. BFPMB also argued that certiorari was the wrong remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents, as debtors, have the right to withdraw their deposit on consignation before acceptance by the creditor or judicial confirmation, and whether BFPMB accepted the deposit on consignation. Whether the respondents properly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the RTC's interlocutory orders.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated November 12, 2001 and Resolution dated April 12, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64475 are affirmed. The respondents are allowed to withdraw their deposit of P1,034,600.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to withdraw deposit on consignation and BFPMB's alleged acceptance: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the respondents had the right to withdraw their deposit of P1,034,600.00. Citing Article 1260 of the Civil Code, the Court reiterated that a debtor may withdraw the deposited sum before the creditor accepts the consignation or before a judicial declaration that the consignation was properly made. The Court found no convincing evidence that BFPMB had accepted the deposit. BFPMB's claim that it deducted the deposit from the respondents' outstanding obligation during negotiations with the Gaisanos was based on a self-serving statement of account not presented by its preparers. The CA's finding that the claimed acceptance was an afterthought to oppose the withdrawal was given weight. Thus, the respondents, as debtors, retained ownership of the deposited sum and could withdraw it. Furthermore, the Court noted that the payment of P25,100,000.00 by the Gaisanos constituted substantial compliance, considering the original restructured loan amount. The Court also found that the surcharges imposed by BFPMB were excessive and inequitable, warranting reduction under Article 1229 of the Civil Code. This further supported the notion that the respondents had largely settled their obligation. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the respondents properly availed of the remedy of certiorari. The orders of the RTC denying the motion to withdraw deposit were interlocutory, as they were issued after the original judgment had been rendered and appealed. Since no appeal was available against such orders, certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the appropriate remedy.
Main Doctrine
Before the creditor has accepted the consignation, or before a judicial confirmation that the consignation has been properly made, the debtor may withdraw the thing or sum deposited, allowing the obligation to remain in force. The bank's claim of acceptance was an afterthought and not supported by convincing evidence.