Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Broqueza, G.R. No.

178610, November 17, 2010

Antonio T. Carpio / (DIVISION)
FACTS: Petitioners Gerong and Editha Broqueza are employees of Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). They are also members of
respondent HSBC, Ltd. Staff Retirement Plan (HSBCL-SRP, plaintiff) The
HSBCL-SRP is a retirement plan established by HSBC through its board of
trustees for the benefit of the employees.
On October 1, 1990, petitioner Broqueza obtained a car loan in the
amount of Php 175,000.00. On December 12, 1991, she again applied and
was granted an appliance loan in the amount of Php24,000.00. On the other
hand, petitioner Gerong applied and was granted an emergency loan in the
amount of Php35,780.00 on June 2, 1993. These loans are paid through
automatic salary deduction.
Meanwhile in 1993, a labor dispute arose between HSBC and its
employees. Majority of HSBCs employees were terminated, Among whom
petitioners. The employees then filed an illegal dismissal case before the
NLRC against HSBC. Because of their dismissal, petitioners were not able to
pay the monthly amortizations of their respective loans. Thus respondent
considered the accounts delinquent. Demands to pay the respective
obligations were made upon petitioners, but they failed to pay.
ISSUE: Whether or not the loan is immediately demandable
RULING: The obligation to pay the car loan is a pure obligation because the
promissory note does not specify a period. When the employee ceased being
an employee of the company, She can no longer avail of the benefit of
payment by installment. Therefore, ABC INC can demand payment
immediately.

Lao vs. Special Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010
M. Del Castillo, (DIVISION)

FACTS: The petitioners Lao and Manansala entered into a contract of lease
with Special Plans Inc (SPI). Upon expiration of the contract, it was further
renewed for another eight months. Petitioners did not pay the allotted rental
fees which prompted SPI to send a demand letter asking for full payment of
rentals in arrears. Petitioners did not give payment, giving reason that SPI
failed to deliver the leased premises for their intended use and because of

this they incurred expenses for necessary repairs as well as expenses for the
repair of structural defects. They counterclaimed SPI to pay the sum of
422,000 pesos as actual damages against the claim of SPI of 118,000 for
accumulated unpaid rentals.

The Metropolitan Trial Court found that the unpaid rentals only amounted to
95,000 pesos and declared SPI responsible for repairing the structural
defects of the leased premises and thus dismissed SPIs case. SPI then
appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which then modified the
decision of the lower court, disagreeing on the off-setting of the amount
allegedly spent by the petitioners for the repairs of the structural defects of
subject property with their unpaid rentals and ordered the petitioners to pay
95,000 for unpaid rentals. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of
Appeals wherein they asserted that amount of 545,000 that they spent for
repairs, 125,000 pesos of which was spent on structural repairs, should be
judicially compensated against the said unpaid rentals amounting to
95,000.00 pesos.

ISSUE: Whether or not the unpaid rentals should be judicially compensated

with the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.
RULING: Petition dismissed. In order that compensation can take place,
two persons, in their own right, should be creditors and debtors of each
other. In order for compensation to be proper, it is necessary that:
1. Each one of the obligors be bound principally and that he be at the
same time a principal creditor of the other;
2. Both debts consist in a sum of money, of if the things due are
consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if
the latter has been stated;
3. The two debts are due;
4. The debts are liquidated and demandable;
5. Over neither of them be any retention or controversy, commenced by
third parties and communicated in due time to the debtor.
The Petitioners failed to properly discharge their burden to show that the
debts are liquidated and demandable. A claim is liquidated when the amount
and time of payment is fixed. If acknowledged by the debtor, although not in
writing, the claim must be treated as liquidated. When the defendant, who
has an unliquidated claim, sets it up by way of counterclaim, and a judgment
is rendered liquidating such claim, it can be compensated against the
plaintiffs claim from the moment it is liquidated by judgment. Compensation
takes place only if both obligations are liquidated.

Li vs. Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011

J. Villarama, Jr. (EN BANC)

Facts: Respondents 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a

biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity at the St. Lukes Medical
Center (SLMC) on July 7, 1993 and results showed that Angelica was
suffering from osteosarcoma, osteoblastic type, (highly malignant) cancer of
the bone because of that a necessity of amputation was conducted by Dr,
Tamayo on Angelicas right leg in order to remove the tumor and to prevent
the metastasis that chemotherapy was suggested by Dr. Tamayo, which he
referred to petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist. The respondent was
admitted to SLMC on August 18, 1993; however, she died eleven (11) days
after the (intravenous) administration of chemotherapy first cycle.
Respondents brought their daughters body to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination after
the refusal of the hospital to release the death certificate without full
payment of bills. The Medico-Legal Report showed that the cause of death as
"Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. The respondents filed charges
against the SLMC and physicians involve for negligence and failure to
observe the essential precautions in to prevent Angelicas untimely death.
Petitioner denied the allegation for damages as she observed best known
procedures, highest skill and knowledge in the administration of
chemotherapy drugs despite all efforts the patient died. The trial court was
in favor of the petitioner and ordered to pay their unpaid hospital bill in the
amount of P139, 064.43, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
supporting the respondents prayer.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner was negligent.
Ruling: No. The decision of the RTC was reinstated and upheld.
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a
malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the
physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or
inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the
failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would
not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed
treatment." Informed consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to
significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment that would alter
her decision to undergo. The physician is not expected to give the patient a

short medical education, the disclosure rule only requires of him a

reasonable general explanation in nontechnical terms.

Republic of the Philippines vs. De Guzman G.R. No. 175021 June 15, 2011

T. Leonardo-De Castro, (DIVISION)

FACTS: a contract for the acquisition of various building materials was
executed between the respondent and the petitioner. While the petitioner, in
proclaiming that the respondents claim had already been extinguished,
initially insisted on having fulfilled its contractual obligation, it now contends
that the contract it executed with the respondent is actually a fictitious
contract to conceal the fact that only one contractor will be supplying all the
materials and labor for the PNP condominium project.
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals upheld
contract between the petitioner and the respondent on
documentary evidence presented and offered in Court
own stipulations and admissions during various stages of

the validity of the

the strength of the
and on petitioners
the proceedings.

The RTC and the Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioners obligation
has not been extinguished.
ISSUES: Whether or not the obligation of petitioner was extinguished.
RULING:
The petitioners obligation consists of payment of a sum of money. In
order for petitioners payment to be effective in extinguishing its obligation,
it must be made to the proper person. Article 1240 of the Civil Code states:
Art. 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the
obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person
authorized to receive it.

The respondent was able to establish that the LBP check was not
received by her or by her authorized personnel. The PNPs own records show
that it was claimed and signed for by Cruz, who is openly known as being

connected to Highland Enterprises, another contractor. Hence, absent any

showing that the respondent agreed to the payment of the contract price to
another person, or that she authorized Cruz to claim the check on her behalf,
the payment, to be effective must be made to her.