OBLICON| CASES
MARIA
CASE DOCTRINE/TOPIC FACTS
PNB v. CHAN CONSIGNATION Respondent leased a building to PNB for a period of 5 years (Dec 15,
1999-December 14,2004). Soon thereafter (January 22, 2002), she
Consignation is obtained a loan from PNB which was secured by a mortgage over a parcel
always judicial. of land.
On August 2005, respondent filed a complaint against PNB due to its
alleged failure of paying the rental. In its defense, PNB claims that it
applied the rental proceeds from Oct. 2004-January 2005 as payment for
the loans obtained by petitioner. As for the rentals for January 16-Feb.
2006, they claim that they received a demand letter from Lamberto Chua
who claimed to be the new owner of the leased property and
deposited the rentals in a separate non-drawing savings accounts.
In a hearing before the MeTC, the parties agreed to apply the rental
proceeds from Oct 2004-Jan. 2005 to the outstanding loans. PNB then
consigned 1,348,643.92 to the court which represents rentals due
from Jan-2005-Feb 2006. Subsequently, MeTC ordered PNB to pay the
said amount to the respondents to account for the unpaid rentals. PNB
appealed the said order and insisted that the unpaid rentals should be
applied to the outstanding obligations of the respondent.
Pending the appeal, PNB foreclosed on the property and bought the
same for 15,311,000. Aggrieved, respondent then file a Memorandum
before the RTC, claiming that PNB had no right to retain the consigned
amount and that her loan was fully paid when PNB bought the mortgaged
property. PNB countered that the outstanding liability of respondent
amounts to more than 18 million and since the bid price was pegged at
only around 15 million, respondent is still liable for a deficiency at around
2,7,035.71 in which the consigned amount can be applied.
SPS. ABROGAR v. DUE DILIGENCE- In The petitioners in this case sought to recover various damages against
INTERGAMES INC absence of any respondent Intergames and Cosmos Bottling Company for the death of
stipulation, parties their son.
should observe the
diligence of that a It is stated in the facts that the respondents organized an endurance
good father of a running contest and Rommel Abrogar (son of petitioners) was one of the
family. participants. However, during the course of the event, Abrogar was hit by
a passenger jeep and died the following day due to several head injuries.
PROXIMATE As a result of which, petitioners filed a case for damages against
CAUSE respondents on the ground that the latter did not provide adequate
“in which, in natural measures for the safety and protection of their participants
continuous sentence, considering that vehicles were traversing the race route and
1|S T E P H A N I E S E R A P I O | B L O C K C 2 0 2 1
DEAN MEL STA.
ISSUE/HELD
W/N PNB properly consigned the disputed rental
payments? – NO.
Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the
court whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses
payment without just cause.
In order to be valid, the ff requirements must be
satisfied.
1. There was a debt due
2. Valid tender of payment unless consignation
alone is sufficient (absent creditor, incapacitated
to receive payment, without just cause refuses to
issue a receipt, 2 or more person claim the same
right to collect and title has been lost)
3. Previous notice of consignation
4. Amount or thing was placed with the disposal
of court
5. After consignation, persons interested were
notified.
In this case, the records show that the PNB had the
obligation to pay respondent 1,348,643.92 as its payment
for the rentals. PNB then had the option of either paying
the same directly to the respondent or applying it to her
loan. A certain Chua also claims ownership of the leased
property.
But instead of immediately consigning the amount with
the Court, PNB opted to open a non-drawing savings
account. This cannot be considered as a valid
consignment since CONSIGNMENT IS NECESSARY
JUDICIAL. Evidently, the obligation to pay remained
subsisting. And since PNB belatedly consigned the
amount with the court, it is held to be guilty of DEFAULT
and is liable to pay interest.
W/N Intergames was guilty of negligence and w/n
such negligence was the proximate cause of the death
of Rommel? – YES.
Intergames is guilty of negligence. First, it failed to conduct
the race in a road blocked from traffic and did not
coordinate properly with the volunteer personnel manning
the marathon route. Second, the accident was in the
nature of being known and being foreseen. Evidently, the
accident could have been avoided if they exercised due
diligence.
OBLICON| CASES DEAN MEL STA.MARIA
unbroken by any participants were made to run along the flow of the traffic instead of Furthermore, the Court held that the race and failure to
efficient intervening going against it. exert due diligence was the proximate cause of death. As
cause, would produce defined by an American jurisprudence, proximate cause is
injury/death and Respondents on the other hand claimed that they should not be held defined as “in which, in natural continuous sentence,
without which the liable because the death was caused by an accident due to the unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, would
result would not have negligence of the jeepney driver. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners produce injury/death and without which the result
occurred.” alleging that respondents failed to observe the necessary safeguards to would not have occurred. The negligence of the driver
satisfy the requirement of diligence. is not sufficient to constitute efficient intervening cause.

However, CA reverse the decision and held that there was no negligence
involved in the present case. In the present case, respondents had no
choice but to conduct the marathon in the aforestated manner since it was
the condition imposed to them by Northern Police District. Furthermore, it
held that the marathon was not the proximate cause of the death of
Rommel.

2|S T E P H A N I E S E R A P I O | B L O C K C 2 0 2 1