Union Bank of the Philippines · G.R. 191555

Petitioner: Union Bank of the Philippines
Respondent: Development Bank of the Philippines
Citation: G.R. No. 191555
Court: Supreme Court
Division: Second Division
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Decided: January 20, 2014

Summary

Union Bank sought legal compensation to offset its court-ordered obligation to return garnished funds to DBP against DBP's assumed obligations under an Assumption Agreement. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that legal compensation under Civil Code Articles 1279 and 1290 could not apply because the requisites were not met - specifically, DBP's obligations were contingent on prior payment by Foodmasters Worldwide and were neither due nor liquidated/demandable. The Court applied the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, noting that these issues were already resolved in a final 2004 Supreme Court decision which established that DBP's obligation to remit lease payments to Union Bank was contingent on receiving payments from the lessee first. This case demonstrates the strict application of legal requirements for compensation and the binding nature of final court decisions.

Statutes applied

Civil Code, Art. 1279

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Mondragon Personal Sales v. Victoriano S. Sola, Jr. G.R. No. 174882
Thunga Chui v. Que Bentec G.R. No. 929
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pedro Salazar G.R. No. 228703
Rolando C. de La Paz v. L & J Development Company G.R. No. 183360
Citibank v. Modesta R. Sabeniano G.R. No. 156132
Fortunata Solis v. Maxima Barroso G.R. No. 27939
Francisco Gutierrez Repide v. Ivar O. Afzelius G.R. No. 13438
Agaton Araneta v. Braulio Montelibano G.R. No. 4177

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · January 20, 2014

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.