You are on page 1of 2

BP 22 Hour 07 (Compensation or Set-off In

BP 22)
The Lawyer's Post / 2 days ago
Steve and Marciano, owners of a us compan! entered into an a"reement wit#
$aian, a "aso%ine station owner, w#ere! t#e uses of Steve and Marciano wi%%
"et t#eir "as from t#e "as station of $aian, w#i%e $aian wi%% e t#e oo&in"
a"ent of t#e us compan! for Iri"a Cit!' Pa!ment for fue% so%d ! $aian, and
remittance of tic&et sa%es were made t#ru c#ec&s in favour of eac# ot#er' $aian
a%so remitted t#e sa%es of (%ias, anot#er tic&etin" a"ent'
Steve and Marciano issued to $aian one c#ec& as pa!ment for oi% and fue%
products' However, w#en t#e c#ec& was presented for pa!ment, it was
dis#onoured, and despite demand from $aian, remained unpaid, #ence $aian
fi%ed a case a"ainst t#em for vio%ation of BP 22' Steve and Marciano, in t#eir
defense, a%%e"ed t#at t#e! cannot e #e%d %ia%e for BP 22, as t#e! #ave a%read!
paid t#e face va%ue of t#e c#ec&, ! means of set-off or compensation' )#e!
a%%e"ed t#at t#e! returned to $aian severa% c#ec&s w#ic# $aian remitted as
pa!ment for tic&etin" sa%es, unencas#ed, to offset t#eir unfunded c#ec&' $aian,
on t#e ot#er #and, denied #avin" a"reed to an! set-off or compensation of
pa!ment, a%%e"in" t#at t#e va%ue of t#e returned c#ec&s was wa! e%ow t#e tota%
amount of t#e o%i"ation'
*as t#ere a va%id compensation or set-off of pa!ments+ If so, ma! t#e accused e
e,onerated from conviction for vio%ation of BP 22+
)#e Supreme Court answered no to ot# -uestions.
/In t#eir defense, petitioners principa%%! re%! on t#e princip%e of compensation or
offset under t#e civi% %aw to avoid crimina% prosecution' (ssentia%%!, t#e! ar"ue
t#at t#e! cou%d not e #e%d %ia%e for vio%ation of B'P' 22 ecause t#e amount
covered ! t#e su0ect c#ec& #ad a%read! een paid ! compensation or offset
t#rou"# ot#er c#ec&s issued ! respondent as remittances of tic&et sa%es for
petitioners1 us compan!'
It ears stressin" t#at t#e issue of w#et#er or not t#e o%i"ations covered ! t#e
su0ect c#ec& #ad een paid ! compensation or offset is a factua% issue t#at
re-uires eva%uation and assessment of certain facts' )#is is not proper in a
petition for review on certiorari to t#e Supreme Court' *e #ave repeated%! #e%d
t#at t#is Court is not a trier of facts' )#e 0urisdiction of t#is Court over cases
e%evated from t#e Court of 2ppea%s is confined to t#e review of errors of %aw
ascried to t#e Court of 2ppea%s, w#ose findin"s of fact are conc%usive asent an!
s#owin" t#at suc# findin"s are entire%! devoid of an! sustantiation on record'
3n t#is aspect, t#e Court of 2ppea%s affirmed t#e findin"s of t#e tria% court t#at
t#e a%%e"ed compensation is not supported ! c%ear and positive evidence' )#e
tria% court noted t#at t#e tota% amount of t#e two c#ec&s issued ! petitioners is
P245,627'08 w#i%e t#e tota% amount of t#e returned c#ec&s amounted to on%!
P66,454'77' 9o app%ication of pa!ment was made as to w#ic# c#ec& was to e
paid' )#ese factua% findin"s s#ou%d e accorded respect and fina%it! as t#e tria%
court is in t#e est position to assess and eva%uate -uestions of fact' )#ese
findin"s wi%% not e distured on appea% in t#e asence of an! c%ear s#owin" t#at
t#e tria% court over%oo&ed certain facts or circumstances t#at wou%d sustantia%%!
affect t#e disposition of t#e case'
2s found ! t#e tria% court, petitioners1 defense of compensation is unavai%in"
ecause petitioners did not c%ear%! specif! in t#e memorandum dated :une ;0,
;44; w#ic# dis#onored c#ec& is ein" offset' 2pp%!in" 2rtic%e ;28425 in re%ation
to 2rtic%e ;27<2< of t#e Civi% Code, t#e unencas#ed c#ec&s amountin" to
P66,854'27 s#ou%d #ave een app%ied to t#e ear%ier dis#onored c#ec& amountin"
to P257,587'55 w#ic# is more onerous t#an t#e su0ect c#ec& amountin" to on%!
P78,257'77'
*e a%so note t#at no compensation can ta&e p%ace etween petitioners and
respondent as respondent is not a detor of petitioners insofar as t#e two c#ec&s
representin" co%%ections from t#e Baao tic&et sa%es are concerned'27 2rtic%e ;278
of t#e Civi% Code re-uires, as a prere-uisite for compensation, t#at t#e parties e
mutua%%! and principa%%! ound as creditors and detors' If t#e! were not
mutua%%! creditors and detors of eac# ot#er, t#e %aw on compensation wou%d not
app%!'28 In t#is case, t#e memorandum s#ows t#at some unencas#ed c#ec&s
returned to respondent to a%%e"ed%! offset t#e dis#onored c#ec& were from t#e
Baao tic&et sa%es w#ic# are separate from t#e tic&et sa%es of respondent'
=espondent on%! acted as an intermediar! in remittin" t#e Baao tic&et sa%es and,
t#us, is not a detor of petitioners'>
?'=' 9o' ;58664 :une 6, 2002, S)(@( )29 and M2=CI293 )29,
petitioners, vs' FABIAN MENDEZ, JR., respondent.