Myline Cordial

Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 49188, January 30, 1990

FACTS:
In 1967, Emilia Tan filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) before the CFI Manila which rendered a favorable decision to plaintiff. An appeal was made before the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the decision of the lower court. When the judgment became final and executory, Tan filed a motion for the issuance of writ of execution. Four months later, the appellate court’s judgment remained unsatisfied so Tan moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. PAL opposed the motion claiming that it had already paid in full its obligation to plaintiff. It issued a check payable to Emilio Reyes, the deputy sheriff of the respondent court who had absconded or disappeared.

ISSUE:
Did the payment to the absconding sheriff by check-in his name operate as a satisfaction of the judgment debt?

RULING:
No, a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money. It is not money. The delivery of such an instrument does not by itself operate as payment. A check whether a manager’s check or ordinary check is not legal tender, and an offer of check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.