Tel nos. 815-8701 to 03 Fax nos 819-2097


LAW 101
By: Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr.

Sometime in the 1980s, L made fund placements of about $150,000 with
the Anglo-Asean Bank – a private bank registered under the laws of the
Republic of Vanuatu. Subsequently, L encountered difficulties in recovering not
only the interest on his placements but also the principal of the investments he
put in said bank.

He sought the advise of reputable banker and investment manager in the
person of G. G offered to assume the payment of the Anglo-Asean bank’s
indebtedness to L subject to certain terms and conditions laid down in a
Memorandum of Agreement. One of the whereas clauses pertinently read:

‘WHEREAS, the parties herein have come to an
agreement on the nature, form and extent of their mutual
prestations which they now record herein with the express
conformity of the third parties concerned;”

In essence, G undertook to pay L the amount of $150,000 in Philippine
currency at the fixed exchange rate of P21 to US$1 –without interest on or
before July 1993 in consideration for the assignment of the Anglo-Asean bank
debt plus interest.

Pursuant to their MOA, G executed a PN for P3, 150,000 in favor of L as full
settlement of L’s money claims from Anglo-Asean Bank.
G then presented to the Anglo-Asean Bank the Memorandum of
Agreement for the purpose of collecting L’s $150,000 placement. But the Bank
never acted on G’s claims. Because of his inability to collect from Anglo-Asean,
G did not bother to make good on his PN either.

But L thought differently. He believed he had a right to collect on the PN
regardless of the outcome of G’s recovery efforts. So he sued G.
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of L holding G liable
under the Memorandum of Agreement and the PN for P3,150,000 plus 12%
interest p.a. from July 16, 1993 until the amount is fully paid.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision. Hence the
petition for review to the Supreme Court.

The threshold issue was whether the Memorandum of Agreement was one
of assignment of credit or one of conventional subrogation.
An assignment of credit has been defined as the process of transferring the
right of the assignor to the assignee who would then have the right to proceed
against the debtor. The assignment may be done gratuitously or onerously, in
which case, the assignment has an effect similar to that of a sale.

On the other hand, subrogation has been defined as the transfer of all the
rights of the creditor to a third person, who substitutes him in all his rights. It may
either be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation is that which takes place
without agreement but by operation of law because of certain acts. Conventional subrogation is that which takes place by agreement of parties.

The general tenor of the foregoing definitions of the terms “subrogation”
and “assignment of credit” may make it seem that they are one and the same
which they are not. A noted expert in civil law notes their distinctions thus:

“Under our Code, however, conventional
subrogation is not identical to assignment of credit. In
the former, the debtor’s consent is necessary; in the
latter it is not required. Subrogation extinguishes the
obligation and gives rise to a new one; assignment refers
to the same right which passes from one person to
another. The nullity of an old obligation may be cured
by subrogation, such that a new obligation will be
perfectly valid; but the nullity of an obligation is not
remedied by the assignment of the creditor’s right to

Citing the whereas clause which required the conformity of the third
parties concerned and the signature space captioned “with our conforme”
reserved for the bank, the Supreme Court ruled that the Memorandum of
Agreement was one of conventional subrogation. Without the consent of the
debtor Anglo-Asean Bank, the Memorandum of Agreement never came into

(Abelardo B. Licaros vs. Antonio P. Gatmaitan, G.R. No. 142838, Aug. 9, 2001)

Download PDF