ANDRES VS MANTRUST G.R. NO. 82670 SEPTEMBER 15, 1989

FACTS:

Andres, using the business name “Irene’s Wearing Apparel” was engaged in the manufacture of ladies garments, children’s wear, men’s apparel and linens for local and foreign buyers. Among its foreign buyers was Facts of the United States.

Sometime in August 1980, Facts instructed the First National State Bank (FNSB) of New Jersey to transfer $10,000 to Irene’s Wearing Apparel via Philippine National Bank (PNB) Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. FNSB instructed Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corporation (Mantrust) to effect the transfer by charging the amount to the account of FNSB with private respondent.

After Mantrust effected the transfer, the payment was not effected immediately because the payee designated in the telex was only “Wearing Apparel.” Private respondent sent PNB another telex stating that the payment was to be made to “Irene’s Wearing Apparel.”

On August 28, 1980, petitioner received the remittance of $10,000.

After learning about the delay, Facets informed FNSB about the situation. Facts, unaware that petitioner had already received the remittance, informed private respondent and amended its instruction y asking it to effect the payment to Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) instead of PNB.

Private respondent, also unaware that petitioner had already received the remittance, instructed PCIB to pay $10,000 to petitioner. Hence, petitioner received another $10,000 which was charged again to the account of Facets with FNSB.

FNSB discovered that private respondent had made a duplication of remittance. Private respondent asked petitioner to return the second remittance of $10,000 but the latter refused to do so contending that the doctrine of solution indebiti does not apply because there was negligence on the part of the respondents and that they were not unjustly enriched since Facets still has a balance of $49,324.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000 remittance it had delivered to petitioner

HELD: Yes. Art 2154 of the New Civil Code is applicable. For this article to apply, the following requisites must concur: 1) that he who paid was not under obligation to do so; and 2) that payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact.

There was a mistake, not negligence, in the second remittance. It was evident by the fact that both remittances have the same reference invoice number.