Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-49188. January 30, 1990)

    Uploaded by

    howard clark
    Philippine Airlines (PAL) was found by the courts to have wronged Amelia Tan. After over 20 years of litigation, Tan had not received any payment from PAL. PAL claimed the judgment debt was extinguished when they paid the absconding sheriff with checks, rather than cash. The Supreme Court ruled that checks are not considered legal tender or valid payment to extinguish a judgment debt unless agreed by both parties. As checks are substitutes for money, merely delivering checks does not discharge the obligation under the judgment until the payment is actually realized in cash. The court affirmed the appellate court's decision that PAL's debt to Tan was not extinguished by payment with checks to the sheriff.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-49188. January 30, 1990)

    Uploaded by

    howard clark
    79 views1 page
    Philippine Airlines (PAL) was found by the courts to have wronged Amelia Tan. After over 20 years of litigation, Tan had not received any payment from PAL. PAL claimed the judgment debt was extinguished when they paid the absconding sheriff with checks, rather than cash. The Supreme Court ruled that checks are not considered legal tender or valid payment to extinguish a judgment debt unless agreed by both parties. As checks are substitutes for money, merely delivering checks does not discharge the obligation under the judgment until the payment is actually realized in cash. The court affirmed the appellate court's decision that PAL's debt to Tan was not extinguished by payment with checks to the sheriff.

    Original Description:

    asda

    Original Title

    Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-49188. January 30, 1990]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Philippine Airlines (PAL) was found by the courts to have wronged Amelia Tan. After over 20 years of litigation, Tan had not received any payment from PAL. PAL claimed the judgment debt was extinguished when they paid the absconding sheriff with checks, rather than cash. The Supreme Court ruled that checks are not considered legal tender or valid payment to extinguish a judgment debt unless agreed by both parties. As checks are substitutes for money, merely delivering checks does not discharge the obligation under the judgment until the payment is actually realized in cash. The court affirmed the appellate court's decision that PAL's debt to Tan was not extinguished by payment with checks to the sheriff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    79 views1 page

    Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-49188. January 30, 1990)

    Uploaded by

    howard clark
    Philippine Airlines (PAL) was found by the courts to have wronged Amelia Tan. After over 20 years of litigation, Tan had not received any payment from PAL. PAL claimed the judgment debt was extinguished when they paid the absconding sheriff with checks, rather than cash. The Supreme Court ruled that checks are not considered legal tender or valid payment to extinguish a judgment debt unless agreed by both parties. As checks are substitutes for money, merely delivering checks does not discharge the obligation under the judgment until the payment is actually realized in cash. The court affirmed the appellate court's decision that PAL's debt to Tan was not extinguished by payment with checks to the sheriff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-49188.

    January 30, 1990]

    FACTS

    Amelia Tan was found to have been wronged by Philippine Air Lines (PAL). She filed her
    complaint in 1967. After ten (10) years of protracted litigation in the Court of First Instance and
    the Court of Appeals, Ms. Tan won her case. Almost twenty-two (22) years later, Ms. Tan has not
    seen a centavo of what the courts have solemnly declared as rightfully hers. Through absolutely
    no fault of her own, Ms. Tan has been deprived of what, technically, she should have been paid
    from the start, before 1967, without need of her going to court to enforce her rights. And all
    because PAL did not issue the checks intended for her, in her name. Petitioner PAL filed a
    petition for review on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for
    certiorari against the order of the Court of First Instance (CFI) which issued an alias writ of
    execution against them. Petitioner alleged that the payment in check had already been effected
    to the absconding sheriff, satisfying the judgment.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not payment by check to the sheriff extinguished the judgment debt.

    RULING

    NO. The payment made by the petitioner to the absconding sheriff was not in cash or legal
    tender but in checks. The checks were not payable to Amelia Tan or Able Printing Press but to
    the absconding sheriff.In the absence of an agreement, either express or implied, payment
    means the discharge of a debt or obligation in money and unless the parties so agree, a debtor
    has no rights, except at his own peril, to substitute something in lieu of cash as medium of
    payment of his debt. Strictly speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the petitioner’s checks, in
    the case at bar, does not, per se, operate as a discharge of the judgment debt. The check as a
    negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an
    instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a manager’s check or
    ordinary cheek, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid
    tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of
    checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished
    and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized (Art.
    1249, Civil Code, par. 3).

    You might also like