2
GAN TION v CA, JUDGE AGUSTIN MONTESA (CFI, Manila), ONG WAN SIENG, SHERIFF OF MANILA 21 May 1969 Ponente: Makalintal, J. DOCTRINE: Compensation possible only when two parties are each other’s creditor and debtor FACTS 1. 1961 – P filed an ejectment case against Ong Wan Sieng (OWS) 2. P contends that OWS was in default for 2 months of rent at 180/month 3. OWS contends that rent was only 160/month, and that he tried to pay P but was refused 4. CFI ruled in favor of OWS, awarding latter P500 in attorney’s fees 5. 1963 – P notified OWS that rent would increase 180/month, and demanded payment of unpaid rent amounting to 4k from 1961-1963 6. OWS able to obtain writ of execution for P500 attorney’s fees 7. P complained that P500 should be considered partial legal compensation to him for the 4k debt owed by OWS 8. CA ruled against P, stating that P500 can only be considered legal compensation if P and OWS were creditors and debtors of one another, but the P500 attorney’s fees did not belong to P but to his attorney, and therefore the attorney was the creditor, not P ISSUES 1. WON attorney’s fees can be subject of legal compensation RULING

Digest - Gan Tion v CA

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Digest - Gan Tion v CA

Citation preview

Page 1: Digest - Gan Tion v CA

GAN TION vCA, JUDGE AGUSTIN MONTESA (CFI, Manila), ONG WAN SIENG, SHERIFF OF MANILA21 May 1969Ponente: Makalintal, J.

DOCTRINE: Compensation possible only when two parties are each other’s creditor and debtor

FACTS

1. 1961 – P filed an ejectment case against Ong Wan Sieng (OWS)2. P contends that OWS was in default for 2 months of rent at

180/month3. OWS contends that rent was only 160/month, and that he tried to

pay P but was refused4. CFI ruled in favor of OWS, awarding latter P500 in attorney’s fees5. 1963 – P notified OWS that rent would increase 180/month, and

demanded payment of unpaid rent amounting to 4k from 1961-1963

6. OWS able to obtain writ of execution for P500 attorney’s fees7. P complained that P500 should be considered partial legal

compensation to him for the 4k debt owed by OWS8. CA ruled against P, stating that P500 can only be considered

legal compensation if P and OWS were creditors and debtors of one another, but the P500 attorney’s fees did not belong to P but to his attorney, and therefore the attorney was the creditor, not P

ISSUES

1. WON attorney’s fees can be subject of legal compensation

RULING

1. Yesa. P500 does not belong to attorney but to Pb. P is the proper creditor of the P500c. P500 may properly be the subject of legal compensation

against OWS’ debtsd. Unjust to ask P to pay P500 when OWS owes him 4k

CA decision reversed