Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 382 views

    Barons MKTG Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Pol David G. Infante
    Barons Marketing Corp purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4,102,483.30 from Phelps Dodge Phils Inc on credit. Barons Marketing paid P300,000, but refused Phelps Dodge's demand for full payment of the outstanding P3,802,478.20, instead requesting to pay in monthly installments. Phelps Dodge filed a case in trial court. The court ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge but with a lower amount. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge for the correct amount but with lower attorney's fees. Barons Marketing then alleged the Court of Appeals erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that a creditor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Barons MKTG Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Pol David G. Infante
    382 views2 pages
    Barons Marketing Corp purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4,102,483.30 from Phelps Dodge Phils Inc on credit. Barons Marketing paid P300,000, but refused Phelps Dodge's demand for full payment of the outstanding P3,802,478.20, instead requesting to pay in monthly installments. Phelps Dodge filed a case in trial court. The court ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge but with a lower amount. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge for the correct amount but with lower attorney's fees. Barons Marketing then alleged the Court of Appeals erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that a creditor

    Original Description:

    bv

    Original Title

    Barons Mktg vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Barons Marketing Corp purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4,102,483.30 from Phelps Dodge Phils Inc on credit. Barons Marketing paid P300,000, but refused Phelps Dodge's demand for full payment of the outstanding P3,802,478.20, instead requesting to pay in monthly installments. Phelps Dodge filed a case in trial court. The court ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge but with a lower amount. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge for the correct amount but with lower attorney's fees. Barons Marketing then alleged the Court of Appeals erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that a creditor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    382 views2 pages

    Barons MKTG Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Pol David G. Infante
    Barons Marketing Corp purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4,102,483.30 from Phelps Dodge Phils Inc on credit. Barons Marketing paid P300,000, but refused Phelps Dodge's demand for full payment of the outstanding P3,802,478.20, instead requesting to pay in monthly installments. Phelps Dodge filed a case in trial court. The court ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge but with a lower amount. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge for the correct amount but with lower attorney's fees. Barons Marketing then alleged the Court of Appeals erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that a creditor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Barons Marketing Corp vs Court of Appeals and Phelp Dodge Phils Inc [G. R. No.

    126486. February 9, 1998] 286 SCRA 96 Case Digest

    Concept:
    Article 1248. Unless there is an express stipulation to that effect, the creditor cannot
    be compelled partially to receive the prestation in which the obligation consists.
    Neither may the debtor be required to make partial payments. However, when the
    debt is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated, the creditor may demand and the
    debtor may effect the payment of the former without waiting for the liquidation of
    the latter.
    Facts:
    On
    August 31, 1973. Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as one of its
    dealers of electrical wires and cables effective Sept. 1, 1973. Defendant was given
    60 days credit for its purchases of Phelps Dodges electrical products. Later on,
    Barons Marketing purchased, on credit, from Phelps Dodges electrical wires and
    cable in the total amount of P4,102,483.30. This was then sold to MERALCO, Baron
    Mktg being the accredited supplier of the electrical requirements of MERALCO.
    Under the sales invoices issued by Phelps Dodge to Barons Mktg for the subject
    purchases, it is stipulated that interest at 12% on the amount of attys fees and
    collection. Barons Mktg paid P300,000 out of its total purchases leaving an unpaid
    account of P3,802,478.20. Phelps Dodge wrote Barons Mktg demanding payment of
    its outstanding obligations due Phelps Dodge. Baron Mktg responded by requesting
    if it could pay its outstanding account in monthly installments of P500,000 plus
    1%interest per month until full payment, this request was rejected and Phelps
    Dodge demanded full payment. Phelps Dodge then filed a complaint before the
    Pasig Trial Court for the recovery of P3,802,478.20 and it also prayed to be awarded
    with attorneys fee at the rate of 25% of the amount demanded, exemplary
    damages in the amount of P100,000, the expenses of litigation and the costs of suit.
    The court ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge with the exemplary damages of P10,000
    and recovery of P3,108,000. Both parties appealed. Phelps Dodge claimed that
    court should have awarded the sum of P3,802,478.20. It also said that the amount
    awarded was a result of a typographical error. Barons Mktg claimed that Phelps
    Dodges claim for damages is a result of creditors abuse and it also claimed that
    Phelps Dodge failed to prove its cause of action against it.
    CoA ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge with the correct amount but only with the
    5% for the Attys fee. No costs. Barons Mktg then alleged that the Coa erred its
    decision

    Issue: W/ON private respondent is guilty of abuse of right

    Held: No. a creditor cannot be considered in delay if he refuses to accept partial


    performance because, unless otherwise provided by law or stipulated by the parties,
    a creditor cannot be compelled to accept
    partial performance; however, if good faith necessitates acceptance or if the
    creditor abuses his right in not accepting, the creditor will incur in delay if he does
    not accept such partial performance.

    You might also like