Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Broqueza, G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    The document summarizes four court cases related to contractual obligations and negligence. In the first case, the court ruled that a loan obligation became immediately demandable when the employee was terminated. In the second case, the court dismissed a claim for unpaid rent to be offset by repair costs, as the repair costs were unliquidated. In the third case, the court found no negligence by a doctor in administering chemotherapy that resulted in a patient's death. In the fourth case, the court ruled that a contractual obligation was not extinguished because payment was made to an unauthorized person, not the proper contractor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Broqueza, G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    2K views5 pages
    The document summarizes four court cases related to contractual obligations and negligence. In the first case, the court ruled that a loan obligation became immediately demandable when the employee was terminated. In the second case, the court dismissed a claim for unpaid rent to be offset by repair costs, as the repair costs were unliquidated. In the third case, the court found no negligence by a doctor in administering chemotherapy that resulted in a patient's death. In the fourth case, the court ruled that a contractual obligation was not extinguished because payment was made to an unauthorized person, not the proper contractor.

    Original Description:

    s

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes four court cases related to contractual obligations and negligence. In the first case, the court ruled that a loan obligation became immediately demandable when the employee was terminated. In the second case, the court dismissed a claim for unpaid rent to be offset by repair costs, as the repair costs were unliquidated. In the third case, the court found no negligence by a doctor in administering chemotherapy that resulted in a patient's death. In the fourth case, the court ruled that a contractual obligation was not extinguished because payment was made to an unauthorized person, not the proper contractor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views5 pages

    Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Broqueza, G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    The document summarizes four court cases related to contractual obligations and negligence. In the first case, the court ruled that a loan obligation became immediately demandable when the employee was terminated. In the second case, the court dismissed a claim for unpaid rent to be offset by repair costs, as the repair costs were unliquidated. In the third case, the court found no negligence by a doctor in administering chemotherapy that resulted in a patient's death. In the fourth case, the court ruled that a contractual obligation was not extinguished because payment was made to an unauthorized person, not the proper contractor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    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.

    You might also like