LEGAL OFFICE NOTES: In Meat Packing Corporation of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 103068, 359 SCRA 409, 421. we distinguished consignation from tender of payment and reiterated the rule that both must be validly done in order to effect the extinguishment of the obligation, thus: Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. It should be distinguished from tender of payment. Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made, produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation. As cited earlier, consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. It is of no moment if the refusal to accept payment be reasonable or not. Indeed, consignation is the remedy for an unjust refusal to accept payment. The first paragraph of Art. 1256 of the Civil Code precisely provides that “[i]f the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due (emphasis supplied).” The proper and valid consignation of the amount due with the court of origin, which shall judicially pronounce the validity of the consignation and declare the debtor to be released from his/her responsibility, shall extinguish the corresponding obligation. Moreover, in order that consignation may be effective, the debtor must show that: (1) there was a debt due; (2) the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to whom tender of payment was made refused to accept it, or because s/he was absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the amount due or because the title to the obligation had been lost; (3) previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation; (4) the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court; and (5) after the consignation had been made, the person interested was notified of the action.[Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgate Bank v. Diaz, G.R. No. 153134, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 248, 263, citing Pabugais v. Sahijwani, G.R. No. 156846, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 596, 601.) (jnl tacorda files)
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 03:48:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015