Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    ANDRES Vs MANTRUST

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Garcia
    Andres received two $10,000 payments for a single order from Facts in the US due to a mistake by Mantrust. Mantrust instructed two different banks to process the same payment after the first bank had already delivered the funds. Andres refused to return the duplicate payment, arguing there was negligence and they were not unjustly enriched. The court ruled that the civil code allows recovery of duplicate payments made by mistake of fact, which this second payment was. Both payments referenced the same invoice number, indicating the duplicate payment was a mistake and not negligence. Mantrust had the right to recover the second $10,000 payment.

    Copyright:

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

    ANDRES Vs MANTRUST

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Garcia
    24 views1 page
    Andres received two $10,000 payments for a single order from Facts in the US due to a mistake by Mantrust. Mantrust instructed two different banks to process the same payment after the first bank had already delivered the funds. Andres refused to return the duplicate payment, arguing there was negligence and they were not unjustly enriched. The court ruled that the civil code allows recovery of duplicate payments made by mistake of fact, which this second payment was. Both payments referenced the same invoice number, indicating the duplicate payment was a mistake and not negligence. Mantrust had the right to recover the second $10,000 payment.

    Original Title

    ANDRES vs MANTRUST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Andres received two $10,000 payments for a single order from Facts in the US due to a mistake by Mantrust. Mantrust instructed two different banks to process the same payment after the first bank had already delivered the funds. Andres refused to return the duplicate payment, arguing there was negligence and they were not unjustly enriched. The court ruled that the civil code allows recovery of duplicate payments made by mistake of fact, which this second payment was. Both payments referenced the same invoice number, indicating the duplicate payment was a mistake and not negligence. Mantrust had the right to recover the second $10,000 payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    ANDRES Vs MANTRUST

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Garcia
    Andres received two $10,000 payments for a single order from Facts in the US due to a mistake by Mantrust. Mantrust instructed two different banks to process the same payment after the first bank had already delivered the funds. Andres refused to return the duplicate payment, arguing there was negligence and they were not unjustly enriched. The court ruled that the civil code allows recovery of duplicate payments made by mistake of fact, which this second payment was. Both payments referenced the same invoice number, indicating the duplicate payment was a mistake and not negligence. Mantrust had the right to recover the second $10,000 payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ANDRES vs MANTRUST

    FACTS:
    Andres, using the business name “Irene’s Wearing Apparel” was engaged in the manufacture of
    ladies garments, children’s wear, men’s apparel and linens for local and foreign buyers. Among
    its foreign buyers was Facts of the United States. Sometime in August 1980, Facts instructed the
    First National State Bank (FNSB) of New Jersey to transfer $10,000 to Irene’s Wearing Apparel
    via Philippine National Bank (PNB) Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. FNSB instructed Manufacturers
    Hanover and Trust Corporation (Mantrust) to effect the transfer by charging the amount to the
    account of FNSB with private respondent. After Mantrust effected the transfer, the payment was
    not effected immediately because the payee designated in the telex was only “Wearing Apparel.”
    Private respondent sent PNB another telex stating that the payment was to be made to “Irene’s
    Wearing Apparel.” On August 28, 1980, petitioner received the remittance of $10,000. After
    learning about the delay, Facets informed FNSB about the situation. Facts, unaware that
    petitioner had already received the remittance, informed private respondent and amended its
    instruction y asking it to effect the payment to Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
    (PCIB) instead of PNB. Private respondent, also unaware that petitioner had already received the
    remittance, instructed PCIB to pay $10,000 to petitioner. Hence, petitioner received another
    $10,000 which was charged again to the account of Facets with FNSB. FNSB discovered that
    private respondent had made a duplication of remittance. Private respondent asked petitioner to
    return the second remittance of $10,000 but the latter refused to do so contending that the
    doctrine of solution indebiti does not apply because there was negligence on the part of the
    respondents and that they were not unjustly enriched since Facets still has a balance of $49,324.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000 remittance it
    had delivered to petitioner.
    RULING:
    Art 2154 of the New Civil Code is applicable. For this article to apply, the following requisites
    must concur: 1. that he who paid was not under obligation to do so; and 2. that payment was
    made by reason of an essential mistake of fact. There was a mistake, not negligence, in the
    second remittance. It was evident by the fact that both remittances have the same reference
    invoice number

    You might also like