S.C. Megaworld Construction vs. Parada

September 8, 2017 | Author: Migen Sandico | Category: Debtor, Debt, Payments, Common Law, Private Law
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Law...

Description

S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation, petitioner vs. Engr. Luis Parada, represented by Engr. Leonardo Parada of Genlite Industries, respondent G.R. No. 183804 September 11, 2013 DOCTRINE: The settled rule is that novation is never presumed, but must be clearly and unequivocally shown. In order for a new agreement to supersede the old one, the parties to a contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old contract in favor of a new one. Thus, the mere substitution of debtors will not result innovation, and the fact that the creditor accepts payments from a third person, who has assumed the obligation, will result merely in the addition of debtors and not novation, and the creditor may enforce the obligation against both debtors. If there is no agreement as to solidarity, the first and new debtors are considered obligated jointly. FACTS: 1. S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation (petitioner) bought electrical lighting materials from Gentile Industries, a sole proprietorship owned by Engineer Luis Parada (respondent), for its Read-Rite project in Laguna. 2. The petitioner Megaworld was unable to pay for the above purchase on the due date, but blamed it on its failure to collect under its sub-contract with the Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. (Enviro Kleen). 3. Megaworld was however able to persuade Enviro Kleen to agree to settle its purchase, but after paying Parada P250,000.00 on June 2, 1999, Enviro Kleen stopped making further payments, leaving an outstanding balance of P816,627.00. 4. Megaworld also ignored the various demands of Parada, who then filed a suit in the RTC, to collect the balance plus damages, costs and expenses. 5. Megaworld denied liability, claiming that it was released from its indebtedness to Parada by reason of the novation of their contract, which, it reasoned, took place when the latter accepted the partial payment of Enviro Kleen in its behalf, and thereby acquiesced to the substitution of Enviro Kleen as the new debtor in Megaworld’s place. 6. RTC ruled in favor of Parada: No novation has taken place. Megaworld must pay the principal obligation due to Parada. 7. The CA concurred with the RTC decision that there was no novation. The CA noted that there is nothing in the 2 letters of the Parada to Enviro Kleen, dated April 14, 1999 and June 16, 1999, which would imply that he consented to the alleged novation, and, particularly, that he intended to release Megaworld from its primary obligation to pay him for its purchase of lighting materials. The CA cited the RTC’s finding that Parada informed Enviro Kleen in his first letter that he had served notice to Megaworld that he would take legal action against it for its overdue account, and that he retained his option to pull out the lighting materials and Megaworld for any damage they might sustain during the pull-out. 8. The CA concurred with the RTC that by retaining his option to seek satisfaction from Megaworld, any acquiescence which Parada had made was limited to merely accepting Enviro Kleen as an additional debtor from whom he could demand payment, but without releasing Megaworld as the principal debtor from its debt to him.

ISSUE: Whether or not a novation of the contract had taken place when Parada accepted the partial payment of Enviro Kleen in Megaworld’s behalf. HELD: No. Novation is never presumed but must be clearly and unequivocally shown. Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by changing its objects or principal obligations, by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor. It is "the substitution of a new contract, debt, or obligation for an existing one between the same or different parties." Article 1293 of the Civil Code defines novation as follows: Art. 1293. Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him rights mentioned in Articles 1236and 1237. Thus, in order to change the person of the debtor, the former debtor must be expressly released from the obligation, and the third person or new debtor must assume the former’s place in the contractual relation. Article 1293 speaks of substitution of the debtor, which may either be in the form of expromision or delegacion, as seems to be the case here. In both cases, the old debtor must be released from the obligation, otherwise, there is no valid novation. As explained in Garcia vs. Llamas (2003): In general, there are two modes of substituting the person of the debtor: (1) expromision and (2) delegacion. In expromision, the initiative for the change does not come from—and may even be made without the knowledge of—the debtor, since it consists of a third person’s assumption of the obligation. As such, it logically requires the consent of the third person and the creditor. In delegacion, the debtor offers, and the creditor accepts, a third person who consents to the substitution and assumes the obligation; thus, the consent of these three persons are necessary. Both modes of substitution by the debtor require the consent of the creditor. From the circumstances obtaining below, we can infer no clear and unequivocal consent by Parada to the release of Megaworld from the obligation to pay the cost of the lighting materials. In fact, from the letters of Parada to Enviro Kleen, it can be said that he retained his option to go after Megaworld if Enviro Kleen failed to settle the petitioner’s debt. As the trial court held: The fact that Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. made payments to the respondent and the latter accepted it does not ipso facto result in novation. Novation to be given its legal effect requires that the creditor should consent to the substitution of a new debtor and the old debtor be released from its obligation (Art. 1293, New Civil Code). A reading of the letters dated 14 April 1999 and dated 16 June 1999 sent by Megaworld to Enviro Kleen clearly shows that there was nothing therein that would evince that Parada has consented to the exchange of the person of the debtor from the petitioner Megaworld to Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. Notably in Exh. 1, albeit addressed to Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc., the respondent expressly stated that it has served notice to the petitioner that unless the overdue account is paid, the matter will be referred to its lawyers and there may be a pull-out of the delivered lighting fixtures. It was likewise stated therein that incident damages that may result to the structure in the course of the pull-out will be to the account of the petitioner.

It is evident from the 2 aforesaid letters that there is no indication of respondent Parada’s intention to release Megaworld from its obligation to pay and to transfer it to Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. The acquiescence of Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. to assume the obligation of the petitioner to pay the unpaid balance of P 816,627.00 to the respondent Parada when there is clearly no agreement to release Megaworld will result merely to the addition of debtors and not novation. Hence, the creditor can still enforce the obligation against the original debtor. A fact which points strongly to the conclusion that the respondent did not assent to the substitution of Enviro Kleen Technologies, Inc. as the new debtor is the present action instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for the fulfillment of its obligation. A mere recital that the respondent has agreed or consented to the substitution of the debtor is not sufficient to establish the fact that there was a novation. The settled rule is that novation is never presumed, but must be clearly and unequivocally shown. In order for a new agreement to supersede the old one, the parties to a contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old contract in favor of a new one. Thus, the mere substitution of debtors will not result innovation, and the fact that the creditor accepts payments from a third person, who has assumed the obligation, will result merely in the addition of debtors and not novation, and the creditor may enforce the obligation against both debtors. If there is no agreement as to solidarity, the first and new debtors are considered obligated jointly. The trial court found that respondent Parada never agreed to release Megaworld from its obligation, and this conclusion was upheld by the CA. We generally accord utmost respect and great weight to factual findings of the trial court and the CA, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been misinterpreted, that if considered would have affected the result of the case. We find no such oversight in the appreciation of the facts below, nor such a misinterpretation thereof, as would otherwise provide a clear and unequivocal showing that a novation has occurred in the contract between the parties resulting in the release of the petitioner. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation is ordered to pay respondent Engr. Luis A. Parada, represented by Engr. Leonardo A. Parada, the principal amount due of P816,627.00, plus interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, reckoned from judicial demand until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per an own from July 1, 2013 until finality hereof, by way of actual and compensatory damages. Thereafter, the principal amount due as adjusted by interest shall likewise earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum until fully paid. The award of attorney's fees is DELETED. SO ORDERED.

View more...

Comments

Copyright © 2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF