NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR. AND CARMEN TIBAJIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.

100290 (233 SCRA 163) June 04, 1993

FACTS: Case No. 54863 was a suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan against the Tibajia spouses. A writ of attachment was issued by the trial court on 17 August 1987 and on 17 September 1987, the Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit made by the Tibajia spouses in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City in the amount of Four Hundred Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P442,750.00) in another case, had been garnished by him. The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in favor of Eden Tan requiring Tibajia spouses to pay Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000). But the Court of Appeals modified the decision and lowered the award for moral and exemplary damages. On 14 December 1990, the Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Bolima the total money judgment amounting to 398,483.70 PhP in cash and in cashiers check. But Eden Tan refused to accept the payment because of its incompleteness and insisted that the garnished funds from RTC Pasig be withdrawn to satisfy the judgment obligation. On January 15, 1991 defendant spouses filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the debt has already been paid. Trial Court denied such motion on the ground that payment in cashiers check is not payment in legal tender. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the spouses after the decision of the Trial Court and affirmed the decision of the latter court stating that payment in cashiers check is not payment in legal tender as required by Republic Act 529. The motion for reconsideration dated May 27, 1991 was denied.

ISSUE/ S: 1) Whether or not the BPI Cashiers Check tendered by petitioners for payment of judgment debt is legal tender. 2) Whether or not the private respondent may validly refuse the tender of payment partly in check and partly in cash made by petitioners thru Aurora Vito and counsel, for the satisfaction of the monetary obligation of petitioners.

HELD: In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court held that: A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. The laws applicable to the case at bar are Article 1249 of the Civil Code, Republic Act 529 and the Central Bank Act. The ruling in these two (2) cases merely applies the statutory provisions which lay down the rule that a check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager's, cashier's or personal check.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners.