THE SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. AND JOSE DELGADO, DEFENDANTS. RUEDA HERMANOS & CO., APPELLANT.

This is an action of interpleader. The plaintiff had in its possession the
sum of P4,234.75, a sum which was due on a matured life insurance policy.
Sometime prior to the commencement of the present action Jose Delgado had his
life insured in the plaintiff company for the sum of $2,500 United States
currency, and received a policy representing said contract of insurance, which
policy was No. 90854. Later said policy was assigned to Rueda Hermanos & Co.
by Jose Delgado to guarantee the payment of a balance of a running account which
then existed between said company and Jose Delgado. The policy matured. The
amount due thereon was payable. Rueda Hermanos & Co. and Jose Delgado each
claimed the amount due. The present action was commenced by the plaintiff and
the sum of P4,234.75 was deposited in court. The plaintiff prayed that the
defendants be required to interplead and litigate their several claims in or to
the said sum of money among themselves. Thereupon Rueda Hermanos & Co. filed
their petition setting up their claim to said sum of money. Later Jose Delgado
presented an answer, in which he set up not only his claim to the said sum of
money but in addition thereto prayed for a judgment against Rueda Hermanos &
Co.

The following facts are admitted:

(1) That a running account existed between Rueda Hermanos & Co. and Jose
Delgado; that Rueda Hermanos & Co. were merchants and doing business in the
city of Manila; that Jose Delgado was engaged in the business in the provinces
and was principally employed in cutting timber from time to time and sending the
same to Manila to be sold by Rueda Hermanos & Co.; that from time to time
Rueda Hermanos & Co. sent to Jose Delgado money and merchandise.

(2) That during the existence of said current account, upon request of Jose
Delgado, and with ample authority thereunto granted, Rueda Hermanos & Co.
sold for and on behalf of Jose Delgado a certain piece of real property located
in the city of Manila for the sum of P3,000; that said sum was accredited by
Rueda Hermanos & Co. to the account of Jose Delgado.

(3) That from time to time Rueda Hermanos & Co. rendered an account to
Jose Delgado showing in detail the nature of their various transactions together
with a net balance of the same; that upon a receipt of said accounts Jose
Delgado made certain exceptions thereto but generally accepted them as a true
statement of their accounts.

(4) That the present action was commenced on the 29th day of April, 1915;
that Rueda Hermanos & Co. filed their answer upon the 1st day of June, 1915;
that Jose Delgado presented his answer on the 26th day of June, 1915; that on
the 30th day of June, 1915, Rueda Hermanos & Co. rendered a final account of
their various transactions with Jose Delgado and delivered a copy of the same to
him, which showed that the balance due the former from the latter on said date
was the sum of P4,211.93 (Exhibit I) ; that on the 7th day of September, 1915,
and sometime after the commencement of the present action, Jose Delgado (Exhibit
A) objected to certain items contained in the final account, which taken
together amounted to P1,700.89.

Passing for the moment, the question of special damages claimed by Delgado,
we proceed to an examination of the current account between him and Rueda
Hermanos & Co. at the time issue was joined in the present action. It
appears that Jose Delgado objected to certain small items in said current
account which, upon an examination of the proof, seems to be without foundation.
In addition to said objection he made the further objection to the allowance of
four items of interest charges on the amounts due in said current account before
a final settlement was made. These items are the charges for interest, on
December 31, 1912, June 30, 1914, December 31, 1914, and June 30, 1915,
amounting to the sum of ^842.07. That objection we think is tenable. There was
no agreement to pay interest on the amounts due in said current account from
time to time. There was no time fixed when the balances of said current account
were due and payable. No demand was made at any time for the payment of such
balances. There is, therefore, no authority in law or fact justifying the
collection of said items of interest in the present case. The objection of Jose
Delgado to said items is, therefore, sustained and they are disallowed and
eliminated from said account.

Jose Delgado objects to another item in said current account of P700. His
contention is that that was an indebtedness due to Pujalte & Co. It appears
from the record, however, that with his knowledge and consent said indebtedness
was paid by Rueda Hermanos & Co. and was passed to them and therefore became
a proper charge in their favor in said current account. It should, therefore, be
allowed.

Our conclusion is with reference to said final account rendered by Rueda
Hermanos & Co., that said items for interest should be deducted from the
total amount and that the account so corrected is the true and correct account
between Rueda Hermanos & Co. and Jose Delgado. Said interest items amount to
P842.07. There should be deducted, therefore, from the total amount of said
account, or the sum of P4,211.93, the sum of P842.07, leaving a balance of
P3,369.86 due on said account from Jose Delgado to Rueda Hermanos & Co. That
being the status of the accounts between Rueda Hermanos & Co. and Jose
Delgado, and considering that the said life insurance policy above noted had
been assigned to Rueda Hermanos & Co. for the purpose of guaranteeing the
payment of said account, in the absence of any other question Rueda Hermanos
& Co. is entitled to the sum of P3,369.86 out of the money deposited in
court and Jose Delgado is entitled to the balance, or the sum of P864.89.

Jose Delgado, however, claims that he had been damaged in the sum of several
thousand pesos by reason of the fact that Rueda Hermanos & Co. failed and
refused to deliver to him the sum of P3,000 which they received as a result of
the sale of the property mentioned above. It will be remembered that Rueda
Hermanos & Co. was authorized by Jose Delgado to sell the property in
question for the sum of P3,000. The property was sold. The money was received by
Rueda Hermanos & Co. in the months of January and May, 1912, and said amount
was duly accredited to the account which they held against him. The record shows
that at the time said credit was given Jose Delgado was indebted to Rueda
Hermanos & Co. in the sum of about P4,500. Did Rueda Hermanos & Co. have
a right to accredit Jose Delgado on the current account with the said sum of
P3,000? If so, then the claim for damages made by him is not tenable. Rueda
Hermanos & Co. received said sum by express authority granted by Delgado.
Said sum was not received on condition that it should be delivered to Delgado.
At that time Delgado was indebted to them in a sum much in excess of the P3,000.
No demand was made that said sum should be paid nor accredited on said account
until sometime later. Delgado asserts that Rueda Hermanos & Co. held his
life insurance policy as a guaranty for the payment of the balance of said
account and, therefore, had no right to retain nor to accredit said sum. It will
be remembered, however, that in the months of January and May, 1912, when said
sum was received, said policy had not yet become the property of Rueda Hermanos
& Co. for said purpose. There was at that time some questions pending
relating to the existence of said policy at all, for the reason that Delgado had
failed to pay the premiums promptly in accordance with the terms of his
contract. Those questions were not settled, and the policy was not finally
restored and made effective, until on or about the 18th day of March, 1913. At
the time said sum was received, therefore, the policy did not constitute a
guaranty for the payment of any balance of said account. We are of the opinion,
therefore, that Rueda Hermanos & Co., under the facts in the present case,
had a right to and was fully justified in accrediting said sum on the account of
Jose Delgado.

Considering the conclusion which we have reached, that Rueda Hermanos &
Co. had a right to accredit the amount received (P3,000) on the current account,
then, of course, Jose Delgado is not entitled to any damages for their failure
to deliver to him said sum. But even though it be admitted that Rueda Hermanos
& Co. should have paid to Jose Delgado the said sum and failed so to do,
that then and in that case, in the absence of fraud, etc. (arts. 1100 to 1108,
Civil Code) the only recoverable damages would be the legal interest upon said
amount. (Art. 1108, Civil Code; Gonzalez Quiros vs. Palanca
Tan-Guinlay, 5 Phil. Rep., 675; Tin Fian vs. Tan, 14 Phil. Rep., 126;
13 Cyc, 56.)

The damages which Jose Delgado is now claiming are based upon losses which he
incurred in certain business transactions which might have resulted in gains or
profits had he received the said P3,000. Even granting that contention his claim
is entirely too remote, speculative and consequential to justify a judgment in
his favor. Speculative profits are too remote to be included in an accurate
estimate of damages. (Beckley vs. Munson, 22 Conn., 299; Abbott
vs. Gatch, 13 Md., 314.)

The appellant contends that the various claims for damages interposed by Jose
Delgado were not proper claims to be made in an action of interpleader. That
contention is based upon the theory that the only question which may be
considered in such proceedings is, which of the contending parties is entitled
to the money deposited in the court. Without attempting at this time to define
the exact limit of the questions which may be litigated between the parties in
an action of interpleader, it is sufficient to say that the questions raised by
Jose Delgado in his answer have a direct bearing upon the question of who was
entitled to the money deposited in the court and with reference to which the
action was instituted. That contention, therefore, is dismissed and
disallowed.

From all of the foregoing, our conclusion is: That the judgment of the lower
court be modified and that a judgment be entered ordering and directing the
lower court to pay to Rueda Hermanos & Co. out of the moneys deposited by
the plaintiff herein the sum of P3,369.86 and to Jose Delgado the sum of P864.89
out of the said sum, and without any findings as to costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avanceña,
JJ., concur.

Carson, J., dissents.