RCBC v Court of Appeals, Felipe Lustre, private respondent
[Kapunan, 1999] unsigned August 10 check being unsigned. In a letter dated January
TOPIC
Concept of Delay – “Article 1170 of the Civil Code states that those
who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of delay are
liable for damages. The delay in the performance of the obligation
however must be either malicious or negligent [the Court cited
Tolentino] x x x There is not imputation, much less evidence, that
private respondent acted with malice or negligence in failing to sign
the check. Indeed we agree with the Court of Appeals’ finding that
such omission [to sign the said checks] was mere ‘inadvertence’ on
the part of the private respondent”
FACTS
Atty Felipe Lustre purchased a Toyota Corolla from Toyota Shaw, Inc.
He made a down payment P164620.00. The rest of the balance would
be paid with 24 postdated checks for P14976.00 each. They would be
paid every 10th day of each month, starting April 10, 1991.
Lustre executed a promissory note and a contract of chatter mortgage
over the vehicle in favor of Toyota Shaw. Paragraph 11 of the contract
says that if the mortgagor defaults in the payment of ANY installment,
the whole amount remaining unpaid shall become due. Mortagor will
also be liable for 25% of the principal due as liquidated damages.
Toyota Shaw assigned all its rights and interests in the chattel
mortgage to RCBC.
RCBC encashed and debited all checks from April 10, 1991 to
January 10, 1993 except on echeck for August 10, 1991 which was
unsigned. The amount was debited from Lustre but was recalled and
re-credited to him. Because of the recall, the last 2 checks for Feb 10,
1993 and March 10, 1993 were no longer presented for payment in
conformity with RCBC’s procedure.
RCBC assumed Lustre defaulted on his payment because of the
21, 1993, RCBC demanded from Lustre the payment of the debt plus
liquidated damages. Lustre refused thus RCBC filed an action for
replevin and damages before the RTC of Pasay City.
ISSUE
WON private respondent is liable for damages and the unpaid
balance. – NO, in fact RCBC should pay him damages
The delay in the performance of the obligation must be malicious or
negligent. [Pls see TOPIC heading] Lustre’s failure to sign the said
checks was mere “inadvertence”. Toyota salesperson Jorge
Geronimo testified that he even verified whether Lustre signed all the
checks and returned 3 or 4 unsigned checks and Lustre did not
object. There was a lack of malice or negligence.
Petitioner already debited the value of the unsigned check from
private respondent’s account only to re-credit it much later. Petitioner
also encashed checks subsequently dated, then abruptly refused to
encash the last two. Pet did not even bother to call Lustre to sign the
check.
Pet is liable for damages caused to Lustre including moral damages
for “mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feeling sand social humiliation suffered by the latter” [LOL]. Then the
Court quotes a paragraph describing Lustre’s good reputation. He’s a
lawyer who loves golf and has children who are professionals