GR 90359; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 90359 June 9, 1992.
Johannes Riesenbeck, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and Juergen Maile, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Johannes Riesenbeck filed a complaint for consignation and damages against respondent Juergen Maile in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. On July 27, 1988, petitioner consigned and deposited P113,750 with the Clerk of Court. Respondent Maile filed a “Manifestation Accepting Consignation and Motion to Dismiss,” stating he accepted the consigned amount “without necessarily admitting the correctness of obligation of plaintiff to defendant,” provided the complaint be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. Petitioner opposed this manifestation. Respondent then filed an Answer with Special Defenses and Counterclaim, and petitioner filed an Answer to Counterclaim. On September 28, 1988, the trial judge issued an order declaring there was a valid consignation and that the defendant could legally accept the payment by consignation with reservation to prove damages and other claims, citing the case of Sing Juco vs. Cuaycong. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to deliver the consigned sum to respondent Maile but denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
What is the effect on the petitioner’s obligation to the private respondent of the latter’s acceptance with reservation of the amount consigned by the petitioner?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent’s acceptance of the consigned amount with a reservation or qualification as to the correctness of the obligation is legally permissible. Relying on Sing Juco vs. Cuaycong and the commentaries of Tolentino, the Court held that when a creditor’s acceptance of money consigned is conditional and with reservations, he is not deemed to have waived the claims he reserved against the debtor. Since the acceptance was with reservations, it did not completely extinguish the entire indebtedness of the petitioner-debtor. The consignation was completed when the court declared it validly made on September 28, 1988, and it has retroactive effect, with payment deemed made at the time of deposit on July 27, 1988. Therefore, the petitioner could no longer claim ownership of the consigned amount or withdraw it. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.