Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    G.R. No. L-17721

    Uploaded by

    Edmund Pulvera Valenzuela II
    Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against Ines Chavez & Company for dishonored checks issued as payment for a sale transaction. The defendants admitted to the debt but denied attorney's fees and the need for a writ of attachment. The trial court ruled in favor of Gregorio, finding that the answer did not raise any material issues as the defendants had admitted the debt and provided no valid defense for non-payment. The denial of attorney's fees did not prevent judgment, as the court has discretion to allow reasonable fees. The denial of claims regarding the writ of attachment also did not prevent judgment, as defendants did not claim damages from the writ.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. L-17721

    Uploaded by

    Edmund Pulvera Valenzuela II
    25 views2 pages
    Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against Ines Chavez & Company for dishonored checks issued as payment for a sale transaction. The defendants admitted to the debt but denied attorney's fees and the need for a writ of attachment. The trial court ruled in favor of Gregorio, finding that the answer did not raise any material issues as the defendants had admitted the debt and provided no valid defense for non-payment. The denial of attorney's fees did not prevent judgment, as the court has discretion to allow reasonable fees. The denial of claims regarding the writ of attachment also did not prevent judgment, as defendants did not claim damages from the writ.

    Original Description:

    Civ Pro Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against Ines Chavez & Company for dishonored checks issued as payment for a sale transaction. The defendants admitted to the debt but denied attorney's fees and the need for a writ of attachment. The trial court ruled in favor of Gregorio, finding that the answer did not raise any material issues as the defendants had admitted the debt and provided no valid defense for non-payment. The denial of attorney's fees did not prevent judgment, as the court has discretion to allow reasonable fees. The denial of claims regarding the writ of attachment also did not prevent judgment, as defendants did not claim damages from the writ.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. L-17721

    Uploaded by

    Edmund Pulvera Valenzuela II
    Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against Ines Chavez & Company for dishonored checks issued as payment for a sale transaction. The defendants admitted to the debt but denied attorney's fees and the need for a writ of attachment. The trial court ruled in favor of Gregorio, finding that the answer did not raise any material issues as the defendants had admitted the debt and provided no valid defense for non-payment. The denial of attorney's fees did not prevent judgment, as the court has discretion to allow reasonable fees. The denial of claims regarding the writ of attachment also did not prevent judgment, as defendants did not claim damages from the writ.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-17721 October 16, 1961


    GREGORIO APELARIO, doing business under "GREGORIO TRADING," plaintiff-
    appellee, vs. INES CHAVEZ & COMPANY, LTD., doing business under "FIDELITY
    MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, LTD., and INES CHAVEZ, defendants-appellants.

    Facts:
    Plaintiff Gregorio Apelario (Gregorio) filed a complaint against Ines Chavez & Company,

    Ltd., a limited partnership, and its general partner, Ines Chavez for the dishonored checks that the

    latter issued as payment to the former for a sale transaction. Gregorio, aside from his complaint

    and for damages, he moved for a writ of attachment which the defendants were able to obtain an

    order to lift by filing a counterbond. Defendants admitted in their answer the credit as well as

    Gregorio’s demand for payment but denied the propriety of attorney’s fees as well as the need for

    the writ of attachment.

    Upon motion of the plaintiff, and over the objection of defendants, the trial court rendered

    judgment on the pleadings in favor of Gregorio. Defendants were unsatisfied; hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the answer raised material issues.

    Ruling:
    No, the defendants-appellants had admitted all the material allegations of the complaint

    concerning the existence of the debt and its non-payment. The pleaded excuse, that they had

    requested plaintiff to wait because appellants' many accounts receivable had not yet been collected,

    is no defense, for a debtor cannot delay payment due just to suit its convenience, and the creditor

    is not an underwriter of his debtor's business unless so stipulated.


    The denial of the averment concerning the stipulated fees of plaintiff's attorney tendered

    no genuine issue, for even without such allegation, it was discretionary in the court to allow

    reasonable attorney's fees by way of damages, if it found it just and equitable to allow their

    recovery (Civil Code, Article 2208) nor does the denial of the complaint's averments concerning

    the fraudulent removal and disposition of defendant's property constitute a bar to a judgment on

    the pleadings, since the defendant neither claimed nor asked for any damages on account of the

    issuance and levy of the writ of attachment.

    You might also like