Compensation
MONDRAGON PERSONAL SALES, INC. v. VICTORIANO S. SOLA, JR.
G.R. no. 174882, January 21, 2013
Peralta, J.
FactS:
Petitioner Mondragon Personal Sales entered into a Contract of Services with
respondent Sola whereby the latter would provide service facilities (bodega cum
office) to petitioner’s products, sales force and customers for a consideration of
commission or service fee which at a certain rate of the monthly sales of
Mondragon.
Prior to the execution of the said contract, respondent’s wife had an existing
obligation with petitioner. Such obligation was acknowledged and confirmed by the
respondent and made himself (with his wife) liable to pay such debt on installment
basis. $y virtue of which, the petitioner withheld the payment of the respondent’s
service fees and applied the same as partial payments to the debt which he
obligated to pay. Thereafter, respondent closed and suspended the operation of his
office cum bodega and subse&uently filed for an action for accounting and
rescission against the petitioner.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner Mondragon and held that there was
no fraud on the part of the latter that would rescind their contract and that it is
correct when it deducted the service commission of Sola to his wife’s account. The
CA reversed the RTC’s decision.
ISSue:
Whether legal compensation under Art. *+79 of the Civil Code would apply in
this case.
Hel*:
Yes.
The
petitioner/s
act
of
withholding
respondent/s
service
fees0commissions and applying them to the latter/s outstanding obligation with the
former is merely an acknowledgment of the legal compensation that occurred by
operation of law between the parties. Compensation is a mode of extinguishing to
the concurrent amount the obligations of persons who in their own right and as
principals are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other. 1egal compensation
takes place by operation of law when all the re&uisites are present, as opposed to
conventional compensation which takes place when the parties agree to
compensate their mutual obligations even in the absence of some re&uisites. 1egal
compensation re&uires the concurrence of the following conditions2
(*) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the
same time a principal creditor of the other3
(+) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are
consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same &uality if the
latter has been stated3
(4) That the two debts be due3
(5) That they be li&uidated and demandable3
(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced
by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.
All the re&uisites for legal compensation are present in this case. Petitioner and
respondent are both principal obligors and creditors of each other. Their debts to
each other consist in a sum of money. Respondent acknowledged and bound himself
to pay petitioner the amount of P*,974,*55.74 which was already due, while the
service fees owing to respondent by petitioner become due every month.
Respondent/s debt is li&uidated and demandable, and petitioner/s payments of
service fees are li&uidated and demandable every month as they fall due. 7inally,
there is no retention or controversy commenced by third persons over either of the
debts. Thus, compensation is proper up to the concurrent amount where petitioner
owes respondent P*+5,858.8* for service fees, while respondent owes petitioner
P*,974,*55.74.