Asis, Beatrix

G.R. No. 130030

Law 21 Case Digests

the
appealed
decision
shall
undisturbed.

remain

Expertravel & Tours, Inc., petitioner

Vs.
The Hon. Court of Appeals & Ricardo
Lo, respondents
THE FACTS:
On Oct. 7, 1987, Expertravel issued to the
respondent, four round-trip tickets to
Hongkong, with hotel accommodations and
transfers for a total of 39,677.20 pesos.
The petitioner made several demands, which
were ignored by Lo. Expertravel then filed a
court complaint for recovery of the amount
plus damages.
Ricardo Lo claims that he has given payment
through then Chairperson of Expertravel, Ms.
Ma. Rocia de Vega. This payment was
evidenced by a check for 42,175.20 pesos
dated Oct. 6, 1987 for which Ms. de Vega
issued another check in favor of Expertravel
for the amount of 50,000.00 pesos with the
notation placement advance for Ricardo Lo,
etc. Expertravel received the sum on Oct.
10, 1987
Both the trial court and the appellate court
held that the payment made by Lo was valid.
Article 1241: Payment made to a third person
shall also be valid in so far as it has
rebounded to the benefit of the creditor
THE ISSUE:
The issue here is therefore not the validity of
the payment and as a result, the
extinguishment of Los obligation to pay to
Expertravel, but whether or not the petitioner
should be made to pay moral damages to Lo.

G.R. No. 125862

Francisco Culaba & Demetria Culaba,
Culaba Store, petitioners
Vs.
Court of Appeals &
Corporation, respondents

San

Miguel

THE FACTS:
SMC sold beer products on credit to the
Culaba spouses in the amount of 28,650.00
pesos. Thereafter the petitioners made a
partial payment of 3,740.00 pesos, leaving an
unpaid balance of 24,910.00. After failed
demands made to the spouses, SMC filed an
action for collection of a sum of money
against them.
The defendant-spouses claim that they had
already payed the plaintiff in full on four
separate occasions, providing four Temporary
Charge of Sales Liquidation Receipts to
substantiate the claim.
Francisco Culaba testified that he made the
payments to an SMC supervisor who came in
an SMC van. The defendant in good faith,
then paid to the said supervisor, and he was,
in turn, issued genuine SMC liquidation
receipt.
For its part, SMC was able to publish a notice
of loss in July 9, 1983 issue of Daily Express
for booklet of receipts, included in which are
the receipts presented by Culaba.

SUPREME COURT RULING

THE ISSUE:

The anguish suffered by a person for having

been made a defendant in a civil suit, as in
the case of Lo, would be no different from the
usual worry and anxiety suffered by anyone
who is haled to court, a situation that cannot
by itself be substantial reason for the award
of moral damages.

The issue is whether or not the payment

made to the alleged SMC supervisor by the
Culaba spouses can be considered valid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and

the award of moral damages to respondent
Ricardo Lo is DELETED. In its other aspects

SUPREME COURT RULING

The petition is dismissed.
Although the alleged SMC supervisor came in
a SMC van, wearing a SMC uniform and even
issued what appeared to be genuine SMC
receipts, payment to the third person is not

Asis, Beatrix
valid in this case and the exception to the
rule, Estoppel, does not apply because of the
following factors a. ) the receipts issued by
the third person claiming to be a SMC
supervisor were included in the lost booklet,
making it public knowledge b. ) receipts were
issued in the wrong order, i.e. one receipt

Law 21 Case Digests

bearing a higher serial number was issued
ahead of a receipt with a lower serial number
c. ) collecting persons name was left blank d.
) Culaba could not even recall the name of
the alleged supervisor