TLG International Continental Enterprising, Inc. v. Flores

G.R. No. L-35381, 31 October 1972

FACTS:

In a case for an action for declaratory relief involving the rights of Bearcon Trading Co, Inc. as lesseeof the premises of Juan Fabella, Judge Flores granted TLG’s Motion to Intervene.TLG intervened as sub-lessee of Bearcon over the property to protect its rights as sub-lessee and to enable it, during pendency of the case, to make a consignation of the monthly rentals as it was at a loss as to who is lawfully and rightfully entitled to receive payments of the monthly rentals. TLG deposited with the Clerk of Court of the CFI P3, 750.00.

Upon Juan Fabella’s prayer, Judge Flores issued an Omnibus Order dismissing the complaint and the complaint in intervention on ground that the subject matter could be better ventilated in the ejectment case against Bearcon. Petitioner filed its Motion to withdraw the P3, 750.00 it deposited because the Order dismissed the case and complaint in intervention without a resolution having been made as to the right of Fabella/Bearcon to the rentals deposited by TLG. This left TLG without any recourse but to apply for authority to withdraw the amount and turn it over to Fabella.

Judge Flores denied it and the motion for reconsideration as well.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge could authorize the withdrawal of the deposits considering that according to respondent, the Court has not ordered the intervenor to make any deposit in connection with the case.

RULING:

Yes, the case was dismissed before the amount deposited was either accepted by the creditor or a declaration made by the Court approving such consignation. The dismissal rendered the consignation ineffectual. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have allowed the withdrawal by TLG of the money deposited with the CFI.

Art. 1260 – Before the creditor has accepted the consignation, or before a judicial declaration that the consignation has been properly made, the debtor may withdraw the thing or the sum deposited, allowing the obligation to remain in force.

The two Orders are hereby set aside and the respondent is directed to grant the withdrawal of the deposit in accordance with the foregoing.

* Case digest by Kristine Camille B. Gahuman, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2018-07-16T05:44:44+00:00May 15th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment