Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Tan Vs Mendez JR

    Uploaded by

    Danica Caballes
    This document summarizes a case between Tan, the operators of a bus company, and Mendez, the owner of gas stations where Tan opened a credit line. Tan issued Mendez a check for 58k that bounced due to insufficient funds. Tan argued the amount was offset by unencashed ticket sale checks from Mendez totaling 66k. However, Mendez claimed multiple checks totaled 235k and the returned checks did not specify which debts they offset. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendez, finding the alleged compensation was not clearly evidenced and the returned checks should have offset the earlier 235k debt per Article 1254 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan Vs Mendez JR

    Uploaded by

    Danica Caballes
    63 views1 page
    This document summarizes a case between Tan, the operators of a bus company, and Mendez, the owner of gas stations where Tan opened a credit line. Tan issued Mendez a check for 58k that bounced due to insufficient funds. Tan argued the amount was offset by unencashed ticket sale checks from Mendez totaling 66k. However, Mendez claimed multiple checks totaled 235k and the returned checks did not specify which debts they offset. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendez, finding the alleged compensation was not clearly evidenced and the returned checks should have offset the earlier 235k debt per Article 1254 of the Civil Code.

    Original Title

    TAN-vs-MENDEZ-JR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a case between Tan, the operators of a bus company, and Mendez, the owner of gas stations where Tan opened a credit line. Tan issued Mendez a check for 58k that bounced due to insufficient funds. Tan argued the amount was offset by unencashed ticket sale checks from Mendez totaling 66k. However, Mendez claimed multiple checks totaled 235k and the returned checks did not specify which debts they offset. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendez, finding the alleged compensation was not clearly evidenced and the returned checks should have offset the earlier 235k debt per Article 1254 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views1 page

    Tan Vs Mendez JR

    Uploaded by

    Danica Caballes
    This document summarizes a case between Tan, the operators of a bus company, and Mendez, the owner of gas stations where Tan opened a credit line. Tan issued Mendez a check for 58k that bounced due to insufficient funds. Tan argued the amount was offset by unencashed ticket sale checks from Mendez totaling 66k. However, Mendez claimed multiple checks totaled 235k and the returned checks did not specify which debts they offset. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendez, finding the alleged compensation was not clearly evidenced and the returned checks should have offset the earlier 235k debt per Article 1254 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    TAN vs MENDEZ JR.

    Facts:
    • Tan(s) are operators of a Bus Company while Mendez is the owner of Gasoline Stations where the
    Petitioners opened a credit line for their buses’ lubricant and fuel consumption; Mendez was also
    designated as the booking and ticketing agent for the bus company
    • Agreement: Fuel and other oil products purchased through withdrawal slips periodically paid through
    issuance of checks; Respondent to remit ticket sales to Petitioners through issuance of checks
    • 58K Check issued by Tan for payment for gas and oil was dishonored by bank due to insufficient funds
    • Mendez sent demand letter; No response -> filed for violation of BP 22
    • Tan: Can’t be held liable since amount subject of check had been offset by the collection from ticket
    sales from the booking office; Presented Memo showing return of various unencashed checks amounting
    to 66K
    • Mendez: Multiple checks were actually dishonored – totaled to 235K; Returned checks could not have
    offset total obligations; Compensation did not take place as there was no application of payment made by
    the petitioners in their memo – if there was, it should have been applied to the 235K and not the 58K
    check alone
    • RTC: Tan(s) violated BP 22
    • CA: Affirmed - alleged compensation is not supported by clear and positive evidence.

    Issue:
    WON obligations covered by the subject check had been paid by compensation or offset by returned
    checks

    SC: NO
    • Alleged compensation is not supported by clear and positive evidence
    • Defense of compensation is unavailing because petitioners did not clearly specify in the memorandum
    which dishonored check is being offset. Applying Article 1289 in relation to Article 1254, the unencashed
    checks (66K) should have been applied to the earlier dishonored check (235K), which is more onerous
    than the subject check amounting to only (58K)

    Art. 1254. When the payment cannot be applied in accordance with the preceding rules, or if application
    cannot be inferred from other circumstances, the debt which is most onerous to the debtor, among those
    due, shall be deemed to have been satisfied. If the debts due are of the same nature and burden, the
    payment shall be applied to all of them proportionately

    You might also like