GR 157353; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157353 December 9, 2004
Food Terminal, Inc. vs. Hon. Reynaldo B. Daway, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI) and private respondent Tao Development, Inc. (TAO) entered into a storage contract. An ammonia leak in FTI’s facility damaged TAO’s deposited onions. TAO sued for damages. The Supreme Court, in a final and executory Resolution in G.R. No. 120097, ordered FTI to pay TAO specified sums as actual damages, unearned profits, and attorney’s fees, with stipulated interest. TAO later demanded P7,194,453.60 as full satisfaction. FTI contested the computation, claiming its obligation was only P7,148,433.72, a variance of less than one percent.
TAO filed a motion for execution in the trial court for a higher amount. The court granted it. FTI then delivered a check for P7,148,433.72, which TAO encashed. FTI argued this payment extinguished its obligation, presenting a letter allegedly from TAO’s president agreeing to the lower sum. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this, with the CA finding the letter to be a forgery and ruling the payment did not constitute full satisfaction.
ISSUE
Whether the payment of P7,148,433.72 by FTI, which was less than the amount claimed by TAO, resulted in the extinguishment of FTI’s total obligation under the final judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on Article 1248 of the Civil Code, which states that a creditor cannot be compelled to accept partial payment of a liquidated obligation unless there is an express stipulation otherwise. FTI was fully aware that TAO was demanding P7,194,453.60. By tendering a lesser amount, FTI could not compel TAO’s acceptance. TAO’s subsequent encashment of the check for the lower amount, after having already moved for execution for the correct sum, constituted merely a receipt of partial payment. It did not operate as a waiver or accord and satisfaction of the entire debt, as there was no showing TAO intended to release FTI from the balance.
Furthermore, the Court declined to review the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that the letter of agreement was a forgery, as this is a pure question of fact not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. The obligation, being liquidated and determined by final judgment, required full payment of the adjudged amount. Therefore, FTI’s partial payment did not extinguish its total liability, and the writ of execution for the balance was proper.