Scribd
Upload
361 views1 page

G.R. No. 126486 Baron's Vs CA... Civil Law

Phelps Dodge Philippines, Inc. (PDPI) appointed Baron's Marketing Corporation (BMC) as a dealer for electrical wires and cables. From 1986 to 1987, BMC purchased over 4 million pesos worth of products from PDPI on credit but only paid 300,000, leaving an outstanding balance of over 3.8 million pesos. When PDPI demanded full payment, BMC requested to pay in installments, which PDPI rejected. PDPI filed a complaint that was ruled in their favor. BMC appealed arguing creditor abuse, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, finding no evidence of PDPI acting in bad faith or intent to harm BMC by protecting their own cash flow position and rejecting partial payment.

Uploaded by

Jon Don
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
361 views1 page

G.R. No. 126486 Baron's Vs CA... Civil Law

Phelps Dodge Philippines, Inc. (PDPI) appointed Baron's Marketing Corporation (BMC) as a dealer for electrical wires and cables. From 1986 to 1987, BMC purchased over 4 million pesos worth of products from PDPI on credit but only paid 300,000, leaving an outstanding balance of over 3.8 million pesos. When PDPI demanded full payment, BMC requested to pay in installments, which PDPI rejected. PDPI filed a complaint that was ruled in their favor. BMC appealed arguing creditor abuse, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, finding no evidence of PDPI acting in bad faith or intent to harm BMC by protecting their own cash flow position and rejecting partial payment.

Uploaded by

Jon Don
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

126486 February 9, 1998


Baron’s Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Phelps Dodge Phils., Inc.

FACT: in 1973, Phelps Dodge Philippines, Inc. (PDPI) appointed Baron’s Marketing Corporation (BMC) as
one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables. From December 1986 to August 1987, BMC purchased
on credit from PDPI various electrical wires in the total amount of 4,102,438.20. these products were
then sold to Meralco. BMC made a payment of 300,000 leaving the outstanding balance of 3,802,438.20.

On several occasions, PDPI demanded payment of the outstanding balance but BMC requested that the
balance be paid in 8 monthly installments plus 1% monthly interest. However, PDPI rejected the offer
and insist the full payment thereof.

PDPI then filed a complaint for the recovery of the value of the products including interest and damages.
The RTC ruled the petition in favor of PDPI. BMC made an appeal on the grounds that the claims for
damages was a result of creditor’s abuse but the CA has affirmed the ruling of the lower court.

ISSUE: WON PDPI is guilty of abuse of rights

HELD: NO. In article 19 of the civil code, there are 3 elements of abuse of rights to consider, namely (1)
existence of a legal right or duty, (2) exercise of bad faith, and (3) intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. It is an elementary rule that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith
rest upon the party alleging the same.

In the instant case, BMC’s allegation that PDPI was motivated by a desire to terminate its agency
relationship so that the latter can directly deal with Meralco was not supported by evidence. Thus, the
court ruled it as mere speculation. On the private respondent’s defense, they have the responsibility to
protect their cash position in order for them to pay their own debts. The creditor-respondent’s right not
to accept partial performance of obligation invoked on the petitioner’s offer to pay in installment was
done in good faith.

You might also like