PNB v CHAN

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner VS. LILIBETH S. CHAN, Respondent

G.R. No. 206037

May 13, 2017

FACTS:

The petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the respondent Lilibeth S. Chan have an agreement, where the respondent is the owner of a three-storey commercial building situated in A. Linao Street, Paco, Manila with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 208782. The respondent leased the commercial building to PNB last May 10, 2000 for a five years contract period starting from December 15, 1999 to December 14, 2004 with a monthly rental of Php 76,160.00. However, the petitioner continued to occupy the property on a monthly basis with a monthly rental of Php 116,788.44 after the contract period has expired. The petitioner vacated the premises on March 23, 2006.

On August 26, 2005, the respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court against PNB for failure to pay the monthly rentals from October 2004 until August 2005.

Hearing held in Metropolitan Trial Court on April 25, 2006 wherein both parties agreed to apply the rental proceeds from October 2004 to January 15, based on the respondents outstanding loan. In August 9, 2006 Metropolitan Trial Court ordered PNB to pay respondent accrued rentals in the amount of Php 1,348,643.92 with interest at 6% per annum from January 16, 2005 up to March 23, 2006.

The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court in Metropolitan Trial Court decision last August 9, 2006. Philippine National Bank insisted that the respondent is not entitled to the disputed rental proceeds amounting to Php 1,348,643.92.

The Regional Trial Court affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court ruling. The RTC ruled that the respondent is entitled to legal interest of 6% per annum and attorney’s fees for having been compelled to litigate to protect her interest, the same with Metropolitan Trial Court decision. Philippine National Bank filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied the motion. After the denial, the petitioner filed a Petition for Review under the Rule of Court before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC decision.

The Court of Appeals found no sufficient evidence on record that the amount of respondent’s liability as of October 31, 2006 is indeed Php 18,016,300.71 as the petitioner claims. The Court of Appeals found that the petitioner is liable to pay the 6% legal interest rate as prescribed under the Article 2209 of Civil Code. The Court of Appeals deleted attorney’s fees because of the public policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Moreover, PNB filed a partial Motion for Reconsideration but the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court, assailing the Court of Appeals decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner can properly consigned the disputed rental payments in the amount of P1, 348,643.92 with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the MeTC of Manila.

2. Whether or not the petitioner incurred delay payment of rentals to the respondent, making it liable to pay legal interest to the latter.

3. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the disputed rental proceeds in order to cover the alleged deficiency in payment of the respondent’s liability after the foreclosure proceedings.

HELD:

1. Yes. Under Article 1256 of the Civil Code, consignation alone is sufficient even without a prior tender payment a) when the creditor is absent or unknown or does not appear at the place of payment, b) when he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due, c) when, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt, d) when two or more persons claim the same right to collect, and e) when the title of the obligation has been lost. In addition, for consignation to be valid, the debtor must comply with the following requirements under the law: 1) there was a debt due, 2) valid prior tender of payment, unless the consignation was made of some legal cause provided in Article 1256, 3) previous notice of the consignation has been given to the persons interested in the performance of the obligation, 4) the amount or thing due was placed at the disposal of the court, and 5) after the consignation had been made, the persons interested were notified thereof. Failure in any of these requirements is enough ground to render consignation ineffective.

2. Yes. Article 2209 provides that if the debtor incurs delay in the performance of an obligation consisting of the payment of a sum of money, he shall be liable to pay the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest at 6% per annum, from January 16, 2005 up to May 30, 2006.

3. No. As for the issue on the petitioner’s entitlement to the subject rental proceeds to cover the deficiency in payment after the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property, SC agree with CA’s finding that there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that such a deficiency exists. Unfortunately, the Statement of Account submitted by PNB is not enough to prove his claim, considering that is unsupported by any corroborating evidence. Besides, the copy of the document in the records, both in the CA rollo and the Supreme Court rollo, consists of illegible pages. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Centiorari.