Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 437 views

    Roblett v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    This case involves a dispute over unpaid equipment rental fees. Contractors Equipment Corporation (CEC) leased construction equipment to Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation (RICC) in 1985. RICC incurred unpaid accounts of 342,909.38 pesos. The parties later entered an agreement where RICC confirmed the debt but received 115,000 pesos in materials, reducing the balance to 227,909.38 pesos. Checks RICC issued were dishonored, increasing the balance. CEC demanded payment of 237,909.38 pesos by July 31, 1986. RICC requested more time to pay but later claimed overpayment. The Supreme Court ruled estoppel applies because RICC did not protest earlier statements of account and

    Copyright:

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

    Roblett v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    437 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over unpaid equipment rental fees. Contractors Equipment Corporation (CEC) leased construction equipment to Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation (RICC) in 1985. RICC incurred unpaid accounts of 342,909.38 pesos. The parties later entered an agreement where RICC confirmed the debt but received 115,000 pesos in materials, reducing the balance to 227,909.38 pesos. Checks RICC issued were dishonored, increasing the balance. CEC demanded payment of 237,909.38 pesos by July 31, 1986. RICC requested more time to pay but later claimed overpayment. The Supreme Court ruled estoppel applies because RICC did not protest earlier statements of account and

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over unpaid equipment rental fees. Contractors Equipment Corporation (CEC) leased construction equipment to Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation (RICC) in 1985. RICC incurred unpaid accounts of 342,909.38 pesos. The parties later entered an agreement where RICC confirmed the debt but received 115,000 pesos in materials, reducing the balance to 227,909.38 pesos. Checks RICC issued were dishonored, increasing the balance. CEC demanded payment of 237,909.38 pesos by July 31, 1986. RICC requested more time to pay but later claimed overpayment. The Supreme Court ruled estoppel applies because RICC did not protest earlier statements of account and

    Copyright:

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

    Roblett v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    This case involves a dispute over unpaid equipment rental fees. Contractors Equipment Corporation (CEC) leased construction equipment to Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation (RICC) in 1985. RICC incurred unpaid accounts of 342,909.38 pesos. The parties later entered an agreement where RICC confirmed the debt but received 115,000 pesos in materials, reducing the balance to 227,909.38 pesos. Checks RICC issued were dishonored, increasing the balance. CEC demanded payment of 237,909.38 pesos by July 31, 1986. RICC requested more time to pay but later claimed overpayment. The Supreme Court ruled estoppel applies because RICC did not protest earlier statements of account and

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    116682 January 2, 1997


    Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation, petitioner
    Vs.
    Court Of Appeals and Contractors Equipment Corporation, respondents

    Ponente: Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo

    FACTS:

    On 23 September 1986 respondent Contractors Equipment Corporation instituted an action


    for a sum of money against petitioner Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation before the RTC-
    Makati alleging that in 1985 it leased to the latter various construction equipment which it used in
    its projects. As a result RICC incurred unpaid accounts amounting to 342,909.38Php. RICC
    entered into an Agreement with CEC where it confirmed petitioner's account. As an off-setting
    arrangement respondent received from petitioner construction materials worth 115,000Php thus
    reducing petitioner's balance to 227,909.38Php. A day before the execution of their Agreement,
    RICC paid CEC 10,000Php in postdated checks which when deposited were dishonored. As a
    consequence the latter debited the amount to petitioner's account of 227,909.38Php thus increasing
    its balance to 237,909.38Php.

    The General Manager of CEC, sent a letter of demand to petitioner through its Vice
    President for Finance regarding the latter's overdue account of 237,909.38Php and sought
    settlement thereof on or before 31 July 1986. In reply, petitioner requested for (30) days to have
    enough time to look for funds to substantially settle its account. Aller Jr., Asst. VP for Finance of
    RICC, declared that he signed the Agreement with the real intention of having proof of payment.
    Additionally, Baltazar Banlot, VP for Finance of RICC, claimed that after deliberation and audit
    it appeared that petitioner overpaid respondent by P12,000.00 on the basis of the latter's Equipment
    Daily Time Reports for 2 May to 14 June 1985 which reflected a total obligation of only
    P103,000.00. He claimed however that the Agreement was not approved by the Board and that he
    did not authorize Aller Jr. to sign thereon. The RTC rendered judgment ordering RICC to pay
    CEC, which was affirmed by the CA.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not estoppel in pais is present in this case.

    RULING:

    YES. Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by
    his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces
    another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so
    that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. This
    doctrine obtains in the present case. A statement of account for 376,350.18Php covering the period
    above mentioned was received from respondent by petitioner with nary a protest from the latter.
    Neither did petitioner controvert the demand letter concerning the overdue account of
    237,909.38Php; on the contrary, it asked for ample time to source funds to substantially settle the
    account. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

    COMMENT:

    The ruling of the Supreme Court is justified. The Doctrine of estoppel has its origin in
    equity, and is based on moral rights and natural justice. In the case at bar, the fact that the evidence
    relied upon by the petitioner is incomplete will prejudice the aggrieved party and so the application
    of the principle of estoppel in this case is proper.

    You might also like