The City of Butuan issued a purchase order to CVC or Gil Cembrano for 757 timber piles. CVC was able to deliver some piles within the 60 day period but the remaining piles were not delivered after the period expired. CVC requested an extension but it was denied. The city held a re-bidding without notifying CVC. CVC and Cembrano filed a breach of contract case against the city. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cembrano and CVC and ordered the city to pay. The city claimed the obligation was discharged but did not prove payment was made to the proper party based on the Court of Appeals decision.
The City of Butuan issued a purchase order to CVC or Gil Cembrano for 757 timber piles. CVC was able to deliver some piles within the 60 day period but the remaining piles were not delivered after the period expired. CVC requested an extension but it was denied. The city held a re-bidding without notifying CVC. CVC and Cembrano filed a breach of contract case against the city. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cembrano and CVC and ordered the city to pay. The city claimed the obligation was discharged but did not prove payment was made to the proper party based on the Court of Appeals decision.
The City of Butuan issued a purchase order to CVC or Gil Cembrano for 757 timber piles. CVC was able to deliver some piles within the 60 day period but the remaining piles were not delivered after the period expired. CVC requested an extension but it was denied. The city held a re-bidding without notifying CVC. CVC and Cembrano filed a breach of contract case against the city. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cembrano and CVC and ordered the city to pay. The city claimed the obligation was discharged but did not prove payment was made to the proper party based on the Court of Appeals decision.
The City of Butuan issued a purchase order to CVC or Gil Cembrano for 757 timber piles. CVC was able to deliver some piles within the 60 day period but the remaining piles were not delivered after the period expired. CVC requested an extension but it was denied. The city held a re-bidding without notifying CVC. CVC and Cembrano filed a breach of contract case against the city. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cembrano and CVC and ordered the city to pay. The city claimed the obligation was discharged but did not prove payment was made to the proper party based on the Court of Appeals decision.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
14. CEMBRANO VS.
CITY OF BUTUAN (502 SCRA
494) FACTS: The City of Butuan issued a Purchase Order for 757 timber piles to CVC or Gil Cembrano. Petitioner, along with Gener Cembrano, secured a loan as evidenced by a promissory note. CVC was able to make two deliveries within the 60-day period, which respondent accepted and paid for. Petitioner received payment for the deliveries as evidenced by disbursement vouchers. The 60-day period for CVC to make the deliveries expired. CVC offered to deliver the remaining timber piles, but respondent refused. CVC, through the petitioner, requested for an extension to complete the delivery. The City Engineer denied its request and recommended to hold a re-bidding regarding the unexecuted portion of the contract. It was held with the approval of former City Mayor Sanchez but without notice to CVC. An investigation was conducted regarding the cancellation of the contract and the re-bidding. CVC and Cembrano, through Go, filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against respondent. In its Answer, respondent admitted the allegations in the complaint. Cembrano appealed the decision to the CA. The CA reversed the decision of the TC and ordered respondent to pay its liability to Cembrano and CVC.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is still bound to its
obligation to CVC.
HELD: Respondent City, as judgment debtor, is
burdened to prove with legal certainty that its obligation under the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049 has been discharged by payment, which under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, is a mode of extinguishing an obligation. It provides that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in- interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Payment made by the debtor to the person of the
creditor or to one authorized by him or by the law to receive it extinguishes the obligation. When payment is made to the wrong party, however, the obligation is not extinguished as to the creditor who is without fault or negligence even if the debtor acted in utmost good faith and by mistake as to the person of the creditor or through error induced by fraud of a third person.
In general, a payment in order to be effective to
discharge an obligation must be made to the proper person. Thus, payment must be made to the obligee himself or to an agent having authority, express or implied, to receive the particular payment.
