GR 84220; (March, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84220 March 25, 1992
BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and HADJI ESMAYATEN LUCMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Benjamin Rodriguez, a businessman from Cebu, accumulated an indebtedness of HK$418,729.60 (equivalent to P540,553.00 in 1968) to Allied Overseas Commercial Co., Ltd., a Hongkong corporation. Upon demand, he issued a check for the amount on September 11, 1970, but it was dishonored as his account had been closed. Allied Overseas, through its Managing Director Lin Ping Huang, assigned this credit to private respondent Hadji Esmayaten Lucman via a Deed of Assignment executed before Philippine Consular officials in Hongkong for a consideration of “HK$1 and other valuable considerations.” Lucman filed a collection case against Rodriguez. The trial court ruled in favor of Lucman, ordering Rodriguez to pay the principal amount with interest, actual damages of P500,000, moral damages of P100,000, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Rodriguez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: (1) the judgment in a related criminal case for falsification (where Lucman was acquitted) should not be used as evidence; (2) the assignment was invalid without his consent as debtor, citing Article 1301 on subrogation; and (3) the award of damages was excessive.
ISSUE
1. Whether the obligation of Rodriguez to Allied Overseas was sufficiently proven.
2. Whether the Deed of Assignment to Lucman was valid without the debtor’s consent.
3. Whether the award of damages was excessive.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification.
1. The obligation was sufficiently proven. The evidence included a statement of account signed by Rodriguez, cable communications, purchase orders, bills of lading, delivery receipts, and testimonies from Lucman and an officer of Allied Overseas. The acquittal of Lucman in the criminal case for falsification, which found the indebtedness to be real, was only one piece of evidence among many.
2. The Deed of Assignment was valid without the debtor’s consent. The transaction was an assignment of credit, not a subrogation. In an assignment, the assignee becomes the owner of the credit, and the debtor’s consent is not required for its validity. The law only requires notice to the debtor so that payment is made to the assignee. The consideration of “HK$1 and other valuable considerations” is sufficient and valid.
3. The award of additional actual damages of P500,000 was excessive and lacked factual basis, and was therefore deleted. The award of the principal indebtedness with interest, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs was upheld. The findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are conclusive and supported by the record.