G.R. No. 108052 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RAMON LAPEZ,[1]DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE SAPPHIRE SHIPPING.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: "1) In the main complaint, ordering the defendant (herein petitioner PNB) to pay the plaintiff (private respondent herein) the sum of US$2,627.11 or its equivalent in Philippine currency with interest at the legal rate from January 13, 1987, the date of judicial demand; "2) The plaintiff's supplemental complaint is hereby dfismissed (sic); "3) The defendant's counterclaims are likewise dismissed." The Facts The factual antecedents as quoted by the respondent Court are reproduced hereinbelow, the same being undisputed by the parties: [4] "The body of the decision reads: "'After a close scrutiny and analysis of the pleadings as well as the evidence of both parties, the Court makes the following conclusions: "'(a) The defendant applied/appropriated the amounts of $2,627.11 and P34,340.38 from remittances of the plaintiff's principals (sic) abroad. These were admitted by the defendant, subject to the affirmative defenses of compensation for what is owing to it on the principle of solution (sic) indebiti; "'(b) The first remittance was made by the NCB of Jeddah for the benefit of the plaintiff, to be credited to his account at Citibank, Greenhills Branch; the second was from Libya, and was intended to be deposited at the plaintiff's account with the defendant, No. 830-2410; "(c) The plaintiff made a written demand upon the defendant for remittance of the equivalent of P2,627.11 by means of a letter dated December 4, 1986 (Exh. D). This was answered by the defendant on December 22, 1986 (Exh. 13), inviting the plaintiff to come for a conference; "'(d) There were indeed two instances in the past, one in November 1980 and the other in January 1981 when the plaintiff's account No. 830-2410 was doubly credited with the equivalents of $5,679.23 and $5,885.38, respectively, which amounted to an aggregate amount of P87,380.44. The defendant's evidence on this point (Exhs. 1 thru 11, 14 and 15; see also Annexes C and E to defendant's Answer), were never refuted nor impugned by the plaintiff. He claims, however, that plaintiffs claim has prescribed. "'(e) Defendant PNB made a demand upon the plaintiff for refund of the double or duplicated credits erroneously made on plaintiff's account, by means of a letter (Exh. 12) dated October 23, 1986 or 5 years and 11 months from November 1980, and 5 years and 9 months from January 1981. Such letter was answered by the plaintiff on December 2, 1986 (Annex C, Complaint). This plaintiff's letter was likewise replied to by the defendant through Exh. 13; "'(f) The deduction of P34,340.38 was made by the defendant not without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, who was issued a receipt No. 857576 dated February 18, 1987 (Exh. E) by the defendant." "'There is no question that the two erroneous double payments made to plaintiff's accounts in 1980 and 1981 created an extra-contractual obligation on the part of the plaintiff in favor of the defendant, under the principle of s