You are on page 1of 1



(GR NO. 146021, March 10, 2006) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sarmiento.

DOCTRINE: If something is received when there is no right to demand it, The two requisites of Solutio Indebiti are present; (1) there is no
and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. right to collect these excess sums; as (2) the amounts have been paid
2154 through mistake by defendants.
During the period in question, there still existed an employer-
Elizabeth Sarmiento was the assistant manager of BPI Espana employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.
Branch. Sometime in 1987, the Espaa Branch was investigated for
several alleged anomalous transactions involving time deposits. The Court likewise agrees with the CA that respondent could not be
Among the suspects in the alleged scam was appellee Sarmiento. faulted for not reporting for work because she merely complied with
the verbal instruction of AVP Kimseng not to report for work when
From October 10, 1987 to June 30, 1988, Sarmiento did not the latter was conducting the investigation of the branch for
regularly report for work. She however received her full salary. anomalies.

Sarmiento received a demand from BPI to return said amount but There can be no mistaken payment in this case. It has been shown
she refused to do so. that the payment of respondents salary was with the knowledge and
approval of respondents immediate superior officers.
BPI asserted that since Sarmiento did not actually work during the
period adverted to, she was not entitled to receive any salary. WHO WON? SARMIENTO

According to Sarmiento, she was verbally directed to stop working

while the investigation was going on.

The RTC dismissed the complaint. The principle of solutio indebiti

upon which the petitioner based its complaint. CA affirmed the


WON there is Solutio Indebiti? NO.