Cases

G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993

LUZAN SIA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

Asuncion Law Offices for petitioner.

Cauton, Banares, Carpio & Associates for private respondent.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

The Decision of public respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, promulgated on 21 August 1991, 1reversing and setting aside the Decision, dated 19 February 1990, 2 of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601, entitled "LUZAN SIA vs. SECURITY BANK and TRUST CO.," is challenged in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules Court.

Civil Case No. 87-42601 is an action for damages arising out of the destruction or loss of the stamp collection of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) contained in Safety Deposit Box No. 54 which had been rented from the defendant pursuant to a contract denominated as a Lease Agreement. 3 Judgment therein was rendered in favor of the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Security Bank & Trust Company, ordering the defendant bank to pay the plaintiff the sum of —

a) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, as actual damages;

b) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), Philippine Currency, as moral damages; and

c) Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, as attorney's fees and legal expenses.

The counterclaim set up by the defendant are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED. 4

The antecedent facts of the present controversy are summarized by the public respondent in its challenged decision as follows:

The plaintiff rented on March 22, 1985 the Safety Deposit Box No. 54 of the defendant bank at its Binondo Branch located at the Fookien Times Building, Soler St., Binondo, Manila wherein he placed his collection of stamps. The said safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff was at the bottom

or at the lowest level of the safety deposit boxes of the defendant bank at its aforesaid Binondo Branch.

During the floods that took place in 1985 and 1986, floodwater entered into the defendant bank's premises, seeped into the safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff and caused, according to the plaintiff, damage to his stamps collection. The defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for his damaged stamps collection, so, the plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the defendant bank.

The defendant bank denied liability for the damaged stamps collection of the plaintiff on the basis of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Lease of Safe Deposit Boxes" (Exhs. "A-1", "1-A"), particularly paragraphs 9 and 13, which reads (sic):

"9. The liability of the Bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

"13. The Bank is not a depository of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

The defendant bank also contended that its contract with the plaintiff over safety deposit box No. 54 was one of lease and not of deposit and, therefore, governed by the lease agreement (Exhs. "A", "L") which should be the applicable law; that the destruction of the plaintiff's stamps collection was due to a calamity beyond obligation on its part to notify the plaintiff about the floodwaters that inundated its premises at Binondo branch which allegedly seeped into the safety deposit box leased to the plaintiff.

The trial court then directed that an ocular inspection on (sic) the contents of the safety deposit box be conducted, which was done on December 8, 1988 by its clerk of court in the presence of the parties and their counsels. A report thereon was then submitted on December 12, 1988 (Records, p. 98-A) and confirmed in open court by both parties thru counsel during the hearing on the same date (Ibid., p. 102) stating:

"That the Safety Box Deposit No. 54 was opened by both plaintiff Luzan Sia and the Acting Branch Manager Jimmy B. Ynion in the presence of the undersigned, plaintiff's and defendant's counsel. Said Safety Box when opened contains two albums of different sizes and thickness, length and width and a tin box with printed word 'Tai Ping Shiang Roast Pork in pieces with Chinese designs and character."

Condition of the above-stated Items —

"Both albums are wet, moldy and badly damaged.

1. The first album measures 10 1/8 inches in length, 8 inches in width and 3/4 in thick. The leaves of the album are attached to every page and cannot be lifted without destroying it, hence the stamps contained therein are no longer visible.

2. The second album measure 12 1/2 inches in length, 9 3/4 in width 1 inch thick. Some of its pages can still be lifted. The stamps therein can still be distinguished but beyond restoration. Others have lost its original form.

3. The tin box is rusty inside. It contains an album with several pieces of papers stuck up to the cover of the box. The condition of the album is the second abovementioned album." 5

The SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as SBTC, appealed the trial court's decision to the public respondent Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 26737.

In urging the public respondent to reverse the decision of the trial court, SBTC contended that the latter erred in (a) holding that the lease agreement is a contract of adhesion; (b) finding that the defendant had failed to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank in maintaining the safety deposit box; (c) awarding to the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P20,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and attorney's fees and legal expenses in the amount of P5,000.00; and (d) dismissing the counterclaim.

On 21 August 1991, the respondent promulgated its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and instead the appellee's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The appellant bank's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED. No costs. 6

In reversing the trial court's decision and absolving SBTC from liability, the public respondent found and ruled that:

a) the fine print in the "Lease Agreement " (Exhibits "A" and "1" ) constitutes the terms and conditions of the contract of lease which the appellee (now petitioner) had voluntarily and knowingly executed with SBTC;

b) the contract entered into by the parties regarding Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was not a contract of deposit wherein the bank became a depositary of the subject stamp collection; hence, as contended by SBTC, the provisions of Book IV, Title XII of the Civil Code on deposits do not apply;

c) The following provisions of the questioned lease agreement of the safety deposit box limiting SBTC's liability:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative.

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.

are valid since said stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; and

d) there is no concrete evidence to show that SBTC failed to exercise the required diligence in maintaining the safety deposit box; what was proven was that the floods of 1985 and 1986, which were beyond the control of SBTC, caused the damage to the stamp collection; said floods were fortuitous events which SBTC should not be held liable for since it was not shown to have participated in the aggravation of the damage to the stamp collection; on the contrary, it offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert in order to save most of the stamps, but the appellee refused; appellee must then bear the lose under the principle of "res perit domino."

Unsuccessful in his bid to have the above decision reconsidered by the public respondent, 7 petitioner filed the instant petition wherein he contends that:

I

IT WAS A GRAVE ERROR OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT COURT WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT SBTC DID NOT FAIL TO EXERCISE THE REQUIRED DILIGENCE IN MAINTAINING THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX OF THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXIST (sic) PROVING THE CONTRARY.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN EXCULPATING PRIVATE RESPONDENT FROM ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 9 AND 13 OF THE AGREEMENT (EXHS. "A" AND "A-1").

III

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE AWARDS OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LEGAL EXPENSES, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. 8

We subsequently gave due course the petition and required both parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they complied with. 9

Petitioner insists that the trial court correctly ruled that SBTC had failed "to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank maintaining such safety deposit box . . . in the light of the environmental circumstance of said safety deposit box after the floods of 1985 and 1986." He argues that such a conclusion is supported by the evidence on record, to wit: SBTC was fully cognizant of the exact location of the safety deposit box in question; it knew that the premises were inundated by floodwaters in 1985 and 1986 and considering that the bank is guarded twenty-four (24) hours a day , it is safe to conclude that it was also aware of the inundation of the premises where the safety deposit box was located; despite such knowledge, however, it never bothered to inform the petitioner of the flooding or take any appropriate measures to insure the safety and good maintenance of the safety deposit box in question.

SBTC does not squarely dispute these facts; rather, it relies on the rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial exidence, are not reviewable on appeal by certiorari. 10

The foregoing rule is, of course, subject to certain exceptions such as when there exists a disparity between the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. 11 Such a disparity obtains in the present case.

As We see it, SBTC's theory, which was upheld by the public respondent, is that the "Lease Agreement " covering Safe Deposit Box No. 54 (Exhibit "A and "1") is just that — a contract of lease — and not a contract of deposit, and that paragraphs 9 and 13 thereof, which expressly limit the bank's liability as follows:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his autliorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith. 12

are valid and binding upon the parties. In the challenged decision, the public respondent further avers that even without such a limitation of liability, SBTC should still be absolved from any responsibility for the damage sustained by the petitioner as it appears that such damage was occasioned by a fortuitous event and that the respondent bank was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury.

We cannot accept this theory and ratiocination. Consequently, this Court finds the petition to be impressed with merit.

In the recent case CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 13 this Court explicitly rejected the contention that a contract for the use of a safety deposit box is a contract of lease governed by Title VII, Book IV of the Civil Code. Nor did We fully subscribe to the view that it is a contract of deposit to be strictly governed by the Civil Code provision on deposit; 14 it is, as We declared, a special kind of deposit. The prevailing rule in American jurisprudence — that the relation between a bank renting out safe deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bailor and bailee, the bailment for hire and mutual benefit 15 — has been adopted in this jurisdiction, thus:

In the context of our laws which authorize banking institutions to rent out safety deposit boxes, it is clear that in this jurisdiction, the prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Section 72 of the General Banking Act [R.A. 337, as amended] pertinently provides:

"Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services:

(a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safequarding of such effects.

xxx xxx xxx

The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section asdepositories or as agents. . . ."(emphasis supplied)

Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract of deposit, i.e., the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal function. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing (Art. 1969, Civil Code] and, pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the parties thereto may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the depositary would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement [Art. 1170, id.]. In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed [Art. 1173, id.]. Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy. In the instant case, petitioner maintains that conditions 13 and l4 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read:

"13. The bank is a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.

"14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

are void as they are contrary to law and public policy. We find Ourselves in agreement with this proposition for indeed, said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Bank's responsibility as a depositary under Section 72 (a) of the General Banking Act. Both exempt the latter from any liability except as contemplated in condition 8 thereof which limits its duty to exercise reasonable diligence only with respect to who shall be admitted to any rented safe, to wit:

"8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it."

Furthermore condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key. Clearly then, to the extent above stated, the foregoing conditions in the contract in question are void and ineffective. It has been said:

"With respect to property deposited in a safe-deposit box by a customer of a safe-deposit company, the parties, since the relation is a contractual one, may by special contract define their respective duties or provide for increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such contract is not in violation of law or public policy. It must clearly appear that there actually was such a special contract, however, in order to vary the ordinary obligations implied by law from the relationship of the parties; liability of the deposit company will not be enlarged or restricted by words of doubtful meaning. The company, in renting safe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that, of its agents or servants, and if a provision

of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. Although it has been held that the lessor of a safe-deposit box cannot limit its liability for loss of the contents thereof through its own negligence, the view has been taken that such a lessor may limit its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation ."[10 AM JUR 2d., 466]. (citations omitted) 16

It must be noted that conditions No. 13 and No. 14 in the Contract of Lease of Safety Deposit Box in CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. are strikingly similar to condition No. 13 in the instant case. On the other hand, both condition No. 8 in CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. and condition No. 9 in the present case limit the scope of the exercise of due diligence by the banks involved to merely seeing to it that only the renter, his authorized agent or his legal representative should open or have access to the safety deposit box. In short, in all other situations, it would seem that SBTC is not bound to exercise diligence of any kind at all. Assayed in the light of Our aforementioned pronouncements in CA Agro-lndustrial Development Corp., it is not at all difficult to conclude that both conditions No. 9 and No. 13 of the "Lease Agreement" covering the safety deposit box in question (Exhibits "A" and "1") must be stricken down for being contrary to law and public policy as they are meant to exempt SBTC from any liability for damage, loss or destruction of the contents of the safety deposit box which may arise from its own or its agents' fraud, negligence or delay. Accordingly, SBTC cannot take refuge under the said conditions.

Public respondent further postulates that SBTC cannot be held responsible for the destruction or loss of the stamp collection because the flooding was a fortuitous event and there was no showing of SBTC's participation in the aggravation of the loss or injury. It states:

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

"Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.'

In its dissertation of the phrase "caso fortuito" the Enciclopedia Jurisdicada Española 17 says: "In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a "caso fortuito" prevents (sic) 18 the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the unforeseen ands unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the "caso fortuito," or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for one debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor." (cited in Servando vs. Phil., Steam Navigation Co., supra). 19

Here, the unforeseen or unexpected inundating floods were independent of the will of the appellant bank and the latter was not shown to have participated in aggravating damage (sic) to the stamps collection of the appellee. In fact, the appellant bank offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert to save most of the then good stamps but the appelle refused and let (sic) these recoverable stamps inside the safety deposit box until they were ruined. 20

Both the law and authority cited are clear enough and require no further elucidation. Unfortunately, however, the public respondent failed to consider that in the instant case, as correctly held by the trial court, SBTC was guilty of negligence. The facts constituting negligence are enumerated in the petition and have been summarized in

this ponencia. SBTC's negligence aggravated the injury or damage to the stamp collection. SBTC was aware of the floods of 1985 and 1986; it also knew that the floodwaters inundated the room where Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was located. In view thereof, it should have lost no time in notifying the petitioner in order that the box could have been opened to retrieve the stamps, thus saving the same from further deterioration and loss. In this respect, it failed to exercise the reasonable care and prudence expected of a good father of a family, thereby becoming a party to the aggravation of the injury or loss. Accordingly, the aforementioned fourth characteristic of a fortuitous event is absent Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which reads:

Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages,

thus comes to the succor of the petitioner. The destruction or loss of the stamp collection which was, in the language of the trial court, the "product of 27 years of patience and diligence" 21 caused the petitioner pecuniary loss; hence, he must be compensated therefor.

We cannot, however, place Our imprimatur on the trial court's award of moral damages. Since the relationship between the petitioner and SBTC is based on a contract, either of them may be held liable for moral damages for breach thereof only if said party had acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 22 There is here no proof of fraud or bad faith on the part of SBTC.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the public respondent Court of Appeals of 21 August 1991 and 21 November 1991, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of 19 February 1990 of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601 is hereby REINSTATED in full, except as to the award of moral damages which is hereby set aside.

Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003

THE CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and L.C. DIAZ and COMPANY, CPA’s, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before us is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 27 October 1998 and its Resolution dated 11 May 1999. The assailed decision reversed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, absolving petitioner Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation, now known as Solidbank Corporation (“Solidbank”), of any liability. The questioned resolution of the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration of Solidbank but modified the decision by deleting the award of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation and cost of suit.

The Facts

Solidbank is a domestic banking corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. Private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA’s (“L.C. Diaz”), is a professional partnership engaged in the practice of accounting.

Sometime in March 1976, L.C. Diaz opened a savings account with Solidbank, designated as Savings Account No. S/A 200-16872-6.

On 14 August 1991, L.C. Diaz through its cashier, Mercedes Macaraya (“Macaraya”), filled up a savings (cash) deposit slip for P990 and a savings (checks) deposit slip for P50. Macaraya instructed the messenger of L.C. Diaz, Ismael Calapre (“Calapre”), to deposit the money with Solidbank. Macaraya also gave Calapre the Solidbank passbook.

Calapre went to Solidbank and presented to Teller No. 6 the two deposit slips and the passbook. The teller acknowledged receipt of the deposit by returning to Calapre the duplicate copies of the two deposit slips. Teller No. 6 stamped the deposit slips with the words “DUPLICATE” and “SAVING TELLER 6 SOLIDBANK HEAD OFFICE.” Since the transaction took time and Calapre had to make another deposit for L.C. Diaz with Allied Bank, he left the passbook with Solidbank. Calapre then went to Allied Bank. When Calapre returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook, Teller No. 6 informed him that “somebody got the passbook.”[3] Calapre went back to L.C. Diaz and reported the incident to Macaraya.

Macaraya immediately prepared a deposit slip in duplicate copies with a check of P200,000. Macaraya, together with Calapre, went to Solidbank and presented to Teller No. 6 the deposit slip and check. The teller stamped the words “DUPLICATE” and “SAVING TELLER 6 SOLIDBANK HEAD OFFICE” on the duplicate copy of the deposit slip. When Macaraya asked for the passbook, Teller No. 6 told Macaraya that someone got the passbook but she could not remember to whom she gave the passbook. When Macaraya asked Teller No. 6 if Calapre got the passbook, Teller No. 6 answered that someone shorter than Calapre got the passbook. Calapre was then standing beside Macaraya.

Teller No. 6 handed to Macaraya a deposit slip dated 14 August 1991 for the deposit of a check for P90,000 drawn on Philippine Banking Corporation (“PBC”). This PBC check of L.C. Diaz was a check that it had “long closed.”[4] PBC subsequently dishonored the check because of insufficient funds and because the signature in

the check differed from PBC’s specimen signature. Failing to get back the passbook, Macaraya went back to her office and reported the matter to the Personnel Manager of L.C. Diaz, Emmanuel Alvarez.

The following day, 15 August 1991, L.C. Diaz through its Chief Executive Officer, Luis C. Diaz (“Diaz”), called up Solidbank to stop any transaction using the same passbook until L.C. Diaz could open a new account.[5] On the same day, Diaz formally wrote Solidbank to make the same request. It was also on the same day that L.C. Diaz learned of the unauthorized withdrawal the day before, 14 August 1991, of P300,000 from its savings account. The withdrawal slip for the P300,000 bore the signatures of the authorized signatories of L.C. Diaz, namely Diaz and Rustico L. Murillo. The signatories, however, denied signing the withdrawal slip. A certain Noel Tamayo received the P300,000.

In an Information[6] dated 5 September 1991, L.C. Diaz charged its messenger, Emerano Ilagan (“Ilagan”) and one Roscon Verdazola with Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document. The Regional Trial Court of Manila dismissed the criminal case after the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss on 4 August 1992.

On 24 August 1992, L.C. Diaz through its counsel demanded from Solidbank the return of its money. Solidbank refused.

On 25 August 1992, L.C. Diaz filed a Complaint[7] for Recovery of a Sum of Money against Solidbank with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. After trial, the trial court rendered on 28 December 1994 a decision absolving Solidbank and dismissing the complaint.

L.C. Diaz then appealed[8] to the Court of Appeals. On 27 October 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision reversing the decision of the trial court.

On 11 May 1999, the Court of Appeals issued its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of Solidbank. The appellate court, however, modified its decision by deleting the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

In absolving Solidbank, the trial court applied the rules on savings account written on the passbook. The rules state that “possession of this book shall raise the presumption of ownership and any payment or payments made by the bank upon the production of the said book and entry therein of the withdrawal shall have the same effect as if made to the depositor personally.”[9]

At the time of the withdrawal, a certain Noel Tamayo was not only in possession of the passbook, he also presented a withdrawal slip with the signatures of the authorized signatories of L.C. Diaz. The specimen signatures of these persons were in the signature cards. The teller stamped the withdrawal slip with the words “Saving Teller No. 5.” The teller then passed on the withdrawal slip to Genere Manuel (“Manuel”) for authentication. Manuel verified the signatures on the withdrawal slip. The withdrawal slip was then given to another officer who compared the signatures on the withdrawal slip with the specimen on the signature cards. The trial court concluded that Solidbank acted with care and observed the rules on savings account when it allowed the withdrawal ofP300,000 from the savings account of L.C. Diaz.

The trial court pointed out that the burden of proof now shifted to L.C. Diaz to prove that the signatures on the withdrawal slip were forged. The trial court admonished L.C. Diaz for not offering in evidence the National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) report on the authenticity of the signatures on the withdrawal slip for P300,000. The trial court believed that L.C. Diaz did not offer this evidence because it is derogatory to its action.

Another provision of the rules on savings account states that the depositor must keep the passbook “under lock and key.”[10] When another person presents the passbook for withdrawal prior to Solidbank’s receipt of the notice of loss of the passbook, that person is considered as the owner of the passbook. The trial court ruled that

the passbook presented during the questioned transaction was “now out of the lock and key and presumptively ready for a business transaction.”[11]

Solidbank did not have any participation in the custody and care of the passbook. The trial court believed that Solidbank’s act of allowing the withdrawal of P300,000 was not the direct and proximate cause of the loss. The trial court held that L.C. Diaz’s negligence caused the unauthorized withdrawal. Three facts establish L.C. Diaz’s negligence: (1) the possession of the passbook by a person other than the depositor L.C. Diaz; (2) the presentation of a signed withdrawal receipt by an unauthorized person; and (3) the possession by an unauthorized person of a PBC check “long closed” by L.C. Diaz, which check was deposited on the day of the fraudulent withdrawal.

The trial court debunked L.C. Diaz’s contention that Solidbank did not follow the precautionary procedures observed by the two parties whenever L.C. Diaz withdrew significant amounts from its account. L.C. Diaz claimed that a letter must accompany withdrawals of more than P20,000. The letter must request Solidbank to allow the withdrawal and convert the amount to a manager’s check. The bearer must also have a letter authorizing him to withdraw the same amount. Another person driving a car must accompany the bearer so that he would not walk from Solidbank to the office in making the withdrawal. The trial court pointed out that L.C. Diaz disregarded these precautions in its past withdrawal. On 16 July 1991, L.C. Diaz withdrew P82,554 without any separate letter of authorization or any communication with Solidbank that the money be converted into a manager’s check.

The trial court further justified the dismissal of the complaint by holding that the case was a last ditch effort of L.C. Diaz to recover P300,000 after the dismissal of the criminal case against Ilagan.

The dispositive portion of the decision of the trial court reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint.

The Court further renders judgment in favor of defendant bank pursuant to its counterclaim the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as attorney’s fees.

With costs against plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.[12]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals ruled that Solidbank’s negligence was the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal of P300,000 from the savings account of L.C. Diaz. The appellate court reached this conclusion after applying the provision of the Civil Code on quasi-delict, to wit:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.

The appellate court held that the three elements of a quasi-delict are present in this case, namely: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that the teller of Solidbank who received the withdrawal slip for P300,000 allowed the withdrawal without making the necessary inquiry. The appellate court stated that the teller, who was not presented by Solidbank during trial, should have called up the depositor because the money to be withdrawn was a significant amount. Had the teller called up L.C. Diaz, Solidbank would have known that the

withdrawal was unauthorized. The teller did not even verify the identity of the impostor who made the withdrawal. Thus, the appellate court found Solidbank liable for its negligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The appellate court ruled that while L.C. Diaz was also negligent in entrusting its deposits to its messenger and its messenger in leaving the passbook with the teller, Solidbank could not escape liability because of the doctrine of “last clear chance.” Solidbank could have averted the injury suffered by L.C. Diaz had it called up L.C. Diaz to verify the withdrawal.

The appellate court ruled that the degree of diligence required from Solidbank is more than that of a good father of a family. The business and functions of banks are affected with public interest. Banks are obligated to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their clients. The Court of Appeals found Solidbank remiss in its duty, violating its fiduciary relationship with L.C. Diaz.

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and a new one entered.

1. Ordering defendant-appellee Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until paid, the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation as well as the cost of suit; and

2. Ordering the dismissal of defendant-appellee’s counterclaim in the amount of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.[13]

Acting on the motion for reconsideration of Solidbank, the appellate court affirmed its decision but modified the award of damages. The appellate court deleted the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Invoking Article 2231[14] of the Civil Code, the appellate court ruled that exemplary damages could be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Since Solidbank was guilty of simple negligence only, the award of exemplary damages was not justified. Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees was also disallowed pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The expenses of litigation and cost of suit were also not imposed on Solidbank.

The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, our decision dated October 27, 1998 is affirmed with modification by deleting the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation and cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.[15]

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Solidbank seeks the review of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals on these grounds:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER BANK SHOULD SUFFER THE LOSS BECAUSE ITS TELLER SHOULD HAVE FIRST CALLED PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY TELEPHONE BEFORE IT ALLOWED THE WITHDRAWAL OF P300,000.00 TO RESPONDENT’S MESSENGER EMERANO ILAGAN, SINCE THERE IS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN

THE OPERATION OF THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT, NOR IS THERE ANY BANKING LAW, WHICH MANDATES THAT A BANK TELLER SHOULD FIRST CALL UP THE DEPOSITOR BEFORE ALLOWING A WITHDRAWAL OF A BIG AMOUNT IN A SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE AND IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER BANK’S TELLER HAD THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO WITHHOLD THE WITHDRAWAL WHEN IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES OF RESPONDENT ON THE WITHDRAWAL SLIP ARE GENUINE AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S PASSBOOK WAS DULY PRESENTED, AND CONTRARIWISE RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS MESSENGER EMERANO ILAGAN, AND IN THE SAFEKEEPING OF ITS CHECKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS A LAST DITCH EFFORT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO RECOVER ITS P300,000.00 AFTER FAILING IN ITS EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE SAME FROM ITS EMPLOYEE EMERANO ILAGAN.

IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT MITIGATING THE DAMAGES AWARDED AGAINST PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 2197 OF THE CIVIL CODE, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FINDING THAT PETITIONER BANK’S NEGLIGENCE WAS ONLY CONTRIBUTORY.[16]

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is partly meritorious.

Solidbank’s Fiduciary Duty under the Law

The rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals conflict on the application of the law. The trial court pinned the liability on L.C. Diaz based on the provisions of the rules on savings account, a recognition of the contractual relationship between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz, the latter being a depositor of the former. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals applied the law on quasi-delict to determine who between the two parties was ultimately negligent. The law on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

We hold that Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence, or culpa contractual.

The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan.[17] Article 1980 of the Civil Code expressly provides that “x x x savings x x x deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.” There is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.

The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 (“RA 8791”),[18] which took effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the State recognizes the “fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.”[19] This new provision in the general banking law, introduced in 2000, is a statutory affirmation of Supreme Court decisions, starting with the 1990 case of Simex International v. Court of Appeals,[20] holding that “the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.”[21]

This fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe “high standards of integrity and performance” is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family.

Article 1172 of the Civil Code states that the degree of diligence required of an obligor is that prescribed by law or contract, and absent such stipulation then the diligence of a good father of a family.[22] Section 2 of RA 8791 prescribes the statutory diligence required from banks – that banks must observe “high standards of integrity and performance” in servicing their depositors. Although RA 8791 took effect almost nine years after the unauthorized withdrawal of the P300,000 from L.C. Diaz’s savings account, jurisprudence[23] at the time of the withdrawal already imposed on banks the same high standard of diligence required under RA No. 8791.

However, the fiduciary nature of a bank-depositor relationship does not convert the contract between the bank and its depositors from a simple loan to a trust agreement, whether express or implied. Failure by the bank to pay the depositor is failure to pay a simple loan, and not a breach of trust.[24] The law simply imposes on the bank a higher standard of integrity and performance in complying with its obligations under the contract of simple loan, beyond those required of non-bank debtors under a similar contract of simple loan.

The fiduciary nature of banking does not convert a simple loan into a trust agreement because banks do not accept deposits to enrich depositors but to earn money for themselves. The law allows banks to offer the lowest possible interest rate to depositors while charging the highest possible interest rate on their own borrowers. The interest spread or differential belongs to the bank and not to the depositors who are not cestui que trust of banks. If depositors are cestui que trust of banks, then the interest spread or income belongs to the depositors, a situation that Congress certainly did not intend in enacting Section 2 of RA 8791.

Solidbank’s Breach of its Contractual Obligation

Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that “responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.” For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence, or culpa contractual, the bank is liable to its depositor.

Calapre left the passbook with Solidbank because the “transaction took time” and he had to go to Allied Bank for another transaction. The passbook was still in the hands of the employees of Solidbank for the processing of the deposit when Calapre left Solidbank. Solidbank’s rules on savings account require that the “deposit book should be carefully guarded by the depositor and kept under lock and key, if possible.” When the passbook is in the possession of Solidbank’s tellers during withdrawals, the law imposes on Solidbank and its tellers an even higher degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook.

Likewise, Solidbank’s tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence in insuring that they return the passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representative. The tellers know, or should know, that the rules on savings account provide that any person in possession of the passbook is presumptively its owner. If the tellers give the passbook to the wrong person, they would be clothing that person presumptive ownership of the passbook, facilitating unauthorized withdrawals by that person. For failing to return the passbook to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz, Solidbank and Teller No. 6 presumptively failed to observe such high degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook, and in insuring its return to the party authorized to receive the same.

In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent. In the present case, L.C. Diaz has established that Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return the passbook only to the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. There is thus a presumption that Solidbank was at fault and its teller was negligent in not returning the passbook to Calapre. The burden was on Solidbank to prove that there was no negligence on its part or its employees.

Solidbank failed to discharge its burden. Solidbank did not present to the trial court Teller No. 6, the teller with whom Calapre left the passbook and who was supposed to return the passbook to him. The record does not indicate that Teller No. 6 verified the identity of the person who retrieved the passbook. Solidbank also failed to

adduce in evidence its standard procedure in verifying the identity of the person retrieving the passbook, if there is such a procedure, and that Teller No. 6 implemented this procedure in the present case.

Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility. The defense of exercising the required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete defense in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana.[25]

The bank must not only exercise “high standards of integrity and performance,” it must also insure that its employees do likewise because this is the only way to insure that the bank will comply with its fiduciary duty. Solidbank failed to present the teller who had the duty to return to Calapre the passbook, and thus failed to prove that this teller exercised the “high standards of integrity and performance” required of Solidbank’s employees.

Proximate Cause of the Unauthorized Withdrawal

Another point of disagreement between the trial and appellate courts is the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal. The trial court believed that L.C. Diaz’s negligence in not securing its passbook under lock and key was the proximate cause that allowed the impostor to withdraw the P300,000. For the appellate court, the proximate cause was the teller’s negligence in processing the withdrawal without first verifying with L.C. Diaz. We do not agree with either court.

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.[26] Proximate cause is determined by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.[27]

L.C. Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of the impostor. Solidbank was in possession of the passbook while it was processing the deposit. After completion of the transaction, Solidbank had the contractual obligation to return the passbook only to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. Solidbank failed to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave the passbook to another person.

Solidbank’s failure to return the passbook to Calapre made possible the withdrawal of the P300,000 by the impostor who took possession of the passbook. Under Solidbank’s rules on savings account, mere possession of the passbook raises the presumption of ownership. It was the negligent act of Solidbank’s Teller No. 6 that gave the impostor presumptive ownership of the passbook. Had the passbook not fallen into the hands of the impostor, the loss of P300,000 would not have happened. Thus, the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was Solidbank’s negligence in not returning the passbook to Calapre.

We do not subscribe to the appellate court’s theory that the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was the teller’s failure to call up L.C. Diaz to verify the withdrawal. Solidbank did not have the duty to call up L.C. Diaz to confirm the withdrawal. There is no arrangement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz to this effect. Even the agreement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz pertaining to measures that the parties must observe whenever withdrawals of large amounts are made does not direct Solidbank to call up L.C. Diaz.

There is no law mandating banks to call up their clients whenever their representatives withdraw significant amounts from their accounts. L.C. Diaz therefore had the burden to prove that it is the usual practice of Solidbank to call up its clients to verify a withdrawal of a large amount of money. L.C. Diaz failed to do so.

Teller No. 5 who processed the withdrawal could not have been put on guard to verify the withdrawal. Prior to the withdrawal of P300,000, the impostor deposited with Teller No. 6 the P90,000 PBC check, which later bounced. The impostor apparently deposited a large amount of money to deflect suspicion from the withdrawal of a much bigger amount of money. The appellate court thus erred when it imposed on Solidbank the duty to call up L.C. Diaz to confirm the withdrawal when no law requires this from banks and when the teller had no reason to be suspicious of the transaction.

Solidbank continues to foist the defense that Ilagan made the withdrawal. Solidbank claims that since Ilagan was also a messenger of L.C. Diaz, he was familiar with its teller so that there was no more need for the teller to verify the withdrawal. Solidbank relies on the following statements in the Booking and Information Sheet of Emerano Ilagan:

xxx Ilagan also had with him (before the withdrawal) a forged check of PBC and indicated the amount of P90,000 which he deposited in favor of L.C. Diaz and Company. After successfully withdrawing this large sum of money, accused Ilagan gave alias Rey (Noel Tamayo) his share of the loot. Ilagan then hired a taxicab in the amount of P1,000 to transport him (Ilagan) to his home province at Bauan, Batangas. Ilagan extravagantly and lavishly spent his money but a big part of his loot was wasted in cockfight and horse racing. Ilagan was apprehended and meekly admitted his guilt.[28] (Emphasis supplied.)

L.C. Diaz refutes Solidbank’s contention by pointing out that the person who withdrew the P300,000 was a certain Noel Tamayo. Both the trial and appellate courts stated that this Noel Tamayo presented the passbook with the withdrawal slip.

We uphold the finding of the trial and appellate courts that a certain Noel Tamayo withdrew the P300,000. The Court is not a trier of facts. We find no justifiable reason to reverse the factual finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The tellers who processed the deposit of the P90,000 check and the withdrawal of the P300,000 were not presented during trial to substantiate Solidbank’s claim that Ilagan deposited the check and made the questioned withdrawal. Moreover, the entry quoted by Solidbank does not categorically state that Ilagan presented the withdrawal slip and the passbook.

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.[29] Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.[30]

We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the present case. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual, where neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability.[31] Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.[32]

Mitigated Damages

Under Article 1172, “liability (for culpa contractual) may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.” This means that if the defendant exercised the proper diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee, or if the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, then the courts may reduce the award of damages. In this case, L.C. Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence in allowing a withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to fall into the hands of an impostor. Thus, the liability of Solidbank should be reduced.

In Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals,[33] where the Court held the depositor guilty of contributory negligence, we allocated the damages between the depositor and the bank on a 40-60 ratio. Applying the same ruling to this case, we hold that L.C. Diaz must shoulder 40% of the actual damages awarded by the appellate court. Solidbank must pay the other 60% of the actual damages.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA’s only 60% of the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The remaining 40% of the actual damages shall be borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA’s. Proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Azcuna, J., on official leave.

L.C. Diaz and Company (LC Diaz), an accounting firm, has a savings account withConsolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (now called Solidbank Corporation).On August 14, 1991, the firm’s messenger, a certain Ismael Calapre, deposited an amount with the bank but due to a long line and the fact that he still needs to deposit a certain amount in another bank, the messenger left the firm’s passbook with a teller of Solidbank. But when the messenger returned, the passbook is already missing. Apparently, the teller returned the passbook to someone else.On August 15, 1991, LC Diaz made a formal request ordering Solidbank not to honor any transaction concerning their account with them until the firm is able to acquire a new passbook. It appears however that in the afternoon of August 14, 1991, the amount of P300,000.00 was already withdrawn from the firm’s account.LC Diaz demanded Solidbank to refund the said amount which the bank refused. LC Diaz then sued Solidbank.In its defense, Solidbank contends that under their banking rules, they are authorized to honor withdrawals if presented with the passbook; that when the P300k was withdrawn, the passbook was presented. Further, the withdrawer presented a withdrawal slip which bore the signatures of the representatives of LC Diaz.The RTC ruled in favor of Solidbank. It found LC Diaz to be negligent in handling its passbook. The loss of the P300k was not the result of Solidbank’s negligence.On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. The CA used the rules on quasi-delict (Article 2176 of the Civil Code).ISSUE: Whether or not the relations between Solidbank and LC Diaz, the depositor, is governed by quasi-delict in determining the liability of Solidbank.HELD: No. Solidbank is liable for the loss of the P300k but it’s liability is grounded on culpa contractual.The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan (Article 1980, Civil Code). There is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor.   The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor.  The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand.  The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.Under their contract, it is the duty of LC Diaz to secure its passbook. However, this duty is also applicable to Solidbank when it gains possession of said passbook which it did when the messenger left it to the bank’s possession through the bank’s teller. The act of the teller returning the passbook to someone else other than Calapre, the firm’s authorized messenger, is a clear breach of contract. Such negligence binds the bank under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility.No contract of trust between bank and depositorThe Supreme Court emphasized that the contractual relation between the bank and the depositor is that of a simple loan. This is despite the wording of Section 2 of Republic Act 8791 (The General Banking Law of 2000) which states that the State recognizes the “fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.” That “the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with  meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.”This fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe “high standards of integrity and performance” is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family.However, the fiduciary nature of a bank-depositor relationship does not convert the contract between the bank and its depositors from a simple loan to a trust agreement, whether express or implied.  Failure by the bank to pay the depositor is failure to pay a simple loan, and not a breach of trust.In short, the General Banking Act simply imposes on the bank a higher standard of integrity and performance in complying with its obligations under the contract of simple loan, beyond those required of non-bank debtors under a similar contract of simple loan. The General Banking Law in no way modified Article 1980 of the Civil Code.

G.R. No. 126780             February 17, 2005

YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

The primary question of interest before this Court is the only legal issue in the case: It is whether a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by having these guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from blame for such loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers.

Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of the Decision1 dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision2 dated 16 December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation, Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin (McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and operated by YHT Realty Corporation.

The factual backdrop of the case follow.

Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin by showing him around, introducing him to important people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the children and in distributing the same to charitable institutions for poor children. Tan convinced McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan took care of McLoughlin's booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987.3

On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box every time he registered at Tropicana in previous trips. As a tourist, McLoughlin was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to its safety deposit boxes. The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel. When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety deposit box with the two keys.4

McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box: Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00) which he placed in two envelopes, one envelope containing Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) and the other envelope Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00); Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) which he also placed in another envelope; two (2) other envelopes containing letters and credit cards; two (2) bankbooks; and a checkbook, arranged side by side inside the safety deposit box.5

On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box with his key and with the key of the management and took therefrom the envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), the envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and his credit cards.6 McLoughlin left the other items in the box as he did not check out of his room at the Tropicana during his short visit to Hongkong. When he arrived in Hongkong, he opened the envelope which contained Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00) and discovered upon counting that only Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) were enclosed therein.7 Since he had no idea whether somebody else had tampered with his safety deposit box, he thought that it was just a result of bad accounting since he did not spend anything from that envelope.8

After returning to Manila, he checked out of Tropicana on 18 December 1987 and left for Australia. When he arrived in Australia, he discovered that the envelope with Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) was short of Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000). He also noticed that the jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.9

When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines on 4 April 1988, he asked Lainez if some money and/or jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to her or to the management. However, Lainez told him that no one in the hotel found such things and none were turned over to the management. He again registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box. He placed therein one (1) envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), another envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) and other envelopes containing his traveling papers/documents. On 16 April 1988, McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to open his safety deposit box. He noticed that in the envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) were missing and in the envelope previously containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian Dollars (AUS$4,500.00) were missing.10

When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him.11 McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLoughlin's key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez.12 Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.13

McLoughlin requested the management for an investigation of the incident. Lopez got in touch with Tan and arranged for a meeting with the police and McLoughlin. When the police did not arrive, Lopez and Tan went to the room of McLoughlin at Tropicana and thereat, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a promissory note dated 21 April 1988. The promissory note reads as follows:

I promise to pay Mr. Maurice McLoughlin the amount of AUS$4,000.00 and US$2,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency on or before May 5, 1988.14

Lopez requested Tan to sign the promissory note which the latter did and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box entitled "Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit Box,"15specifically paragraphs (2) and (4) thereof, to wit:

2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost;

4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.16

On 17 May 1988, McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned stipulations. They opined that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter dated 30 May 1988 which was signed by McLoughlin and sent to President Corazon Aquino.17 The Office of the President referred the letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which forwarded the same to the Western Police District (WPD).18

After receiving a copy of the indorsement in Australia, McLoughlin came to the Philippines and registered again as a hotel guest of Tropicana. McLoughlin went to Malacaňang to follow up on his letter but he was instructed to go to the DOJ. The DOJ directed him to proceed to the WPD for documentation. But McLoughlin went back to Australia as he had an urgent business matter to attend to.

For several times, McLoughlin left for Australia to attend to his business and came back to the Philippines to follow up on his letter to the President but he failed to obtain any concrete assistance.19

McLoughlin left again for Australia and upon his return to the Philippines on 25 August 1989 to pursue his claims against petitioners, the WPD conducted an investigation which resulted in the preparation of an affidavit which was forwarded to the Manila City Fiscal's Office. Said affidavit became the basis of preliminary investigation. However, McLoughlin left again for Australia without receiving the notice of the hearing on 24 November 1989. Thus, the case at the Fiscal's Office was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mcloughlin requested the reinstatement of the criminal charge for theft. In the meantime, McLoughlin and his lawyers wrote letters of demand to those having responsibility to pay the damage. Then he left again for Australia.

Upon his return on 22 October 1990, he registered at the Echelon Towers at Malate, Manila. Meetings were held between McLoughlin and his lawyer which resulted to the filing of a complaint for damages on 3 December 1990 against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan (defendants) for the loss of McLoughlin's money which was discovered on 16 April 1988. After filing the complaint, McLoughlin left again for Australia to attend to an urgent business matter. Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial proceeded with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants.

After defendants had filed their Pre-Trial Brief admitting that they had previously allowed and assisted Tan to open the safety deposit box, McLoughlin filed an Amended/Supplemental Complaint20 dated 10 June 1991 which included another incident of loss of money and jewelry in the safety deposit box rented by McLoughlin in the same hotel which took place prior to 16 April 1988.21 The trial court admitted the Amended/Supplemental Complaint.

During the trial of the case, McLoughlin had been in and out of the country to attend to urgent business in Australia, and while staying in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he incurred expenses for hotel bills, airfare and other transportation expenses, long distance calls to Australia, Meralco power expenses, and expenses for food and maintenance, among others.22

After trial, the RTC of Manila rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by this Court in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit:

1. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of US$11,400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P342,000.00, more or less, and the sum of AUS$4,500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P99,000.00, or a total of P441,000.00, more or less, with 12% interest from April 16 1988 until said amount has been paid to plaintiff (Item 1, Exhibit CC);

2. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,674,238.00 as actual and consequential damages arising from the loss of his Australian and American dollars and jewelries complained against and in prosecuting his claim and rights administratively and judicially (Items II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Exh. "CC");

3. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages (Item X, Exh. "CC");

4. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P350,000.00 as exemplary damages (Item XI, Exh. "CC");

5. And ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay litigation expenses in the sum of P200,000.00 (Item XII, Exh. "CC");

6. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P200,000.00 as attorney's fees, and a fee of P3,000.00 for every appearance; and

7. Plus costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.23

The trial court found that McLoughlin's allegations as to the fact of loss and as to the amount of money he lost were sufficiently shown by his direct and straightforward manner of testifying in court and found him to be credible and worthy of belief as it was established that McLoughlin's money, kept in Tropicana's safety deposit box, was taken by Tan without McLoughlin's consent. The taking was effected through the use of the master key which was in the possession of the management. Payam and Lainez allowed Tan to use the master key without authority from McLoughlin. The trial court added that if McLoughlin had not lost his dollars, he would not have gone through the trouble and personal inconvenience of seeking aid and assistance from the Office of the President, DOJ, police authorities and the City Fiscal's Office in his desire to recover his losses from the hotel management and Tan.24

As regards the loss of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry worth approximately One Thousand Two Hundred US Dollars (US$1,200.00) which allegedly occurred during his stay at Tropicana previous to 4 April 1988, no claim was made by McLoughlin for such losses in his complaint dated 21 November 1990 because he was not sure how they were lost and who the responsible persons were. But considering the admission of the defendants in their pre-trial brief that on three previous occasions they allowed Tan to open the box, the trial court opined that it was logical and reasonable to presume that his personal assets consisting of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry were taken by Tan from the safety deposit box without McLoughlin's consent through the cooperation of Payam and Lainez.25

The trial court also found that defendants acted with gross negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations as innkeepers and were therefore liable to answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin.26

Moreover, the trial court ruled that paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "Undertaking For The Use Of Safety Deposit Box" are not valid for being contrary to the express mandate of Article 2003 of the New Civil Code and against public policy.27 Thus, there being fraud or wanton conduct on the part of defendants, they should be responsible for all damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of their contractual obligations.28

The Court of Appeals affirmed the disquisitions made by the lower court except as to the amount of damages awarded. The decretal text of the appellate court's decision reads:

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED but modified as follows:

The appellants are directed jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff/appellee the following amounts:

1) P153,200.00 representing the peso equivalent of US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00;

2) P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sidney [sic] to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;

3) One-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana Apartment Hotel;

4) One-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;

5) One-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi xxx transportation from the residence to Sidney [sic] Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips;

6) One-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;

7) One-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance;

8) P50,000.00 for moral damages;

9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

10) P200,000 representing attorney's fees.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.29

Unperturbed, YHT Realty Corporation, Lainez and Payam went to this Court in this appeal by certiorari.

Petitioners submit for resolution by this Court the following issues: (a) whether the appellate court's conclusion on the alleged prior existence and subsequent loss of the subject money and jewelry is supported by the evidence on record; (b) whether the finding of gross negligence on the part of petitioners in the performance of their duties as innkeepers is supported by the evidence on record; (c) whether the "Undertaking For The Use of Safety

Deposit Box" admittedly executed by private respondent is null and void; and (d) whether the damages awarded to private respondent, as well as the amounts thereof, are proper under the circumstances.30

The petition is devoid of merit.

It is worthy of note that the thrust of Rule 45 is the resolution only of questions of law and any peripheral factual question addressed to this Court is beyond the bounds of this mode of review.

Petitioners point out that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the fact of prior existence of the dollars and the jewelry which had been lost while deposited in the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana, the basis of the trial court and the appellate court being the sole testimony of McLoughlin as to the contents thereof. Likewise, petitioners dispute the finding of gross negligence on their part as not supported by the evidence on record.

We are not persuaded.l^vvphi1.net We adhere to the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court that the fact of loss was established by the credible testimony in open court by McLoughlin. Such findings are factual and therefore beyond the ambit of the present petition.1awphi1.nét

The trial court had the occasion to observe the demeanor of McLoughlin while testifying which reflected the veracity of the facts testified to by him. On this score, we give full credence to the appreciation of testimonial evidence by the trial court especially if what is at issue is the credibility of the witness. The oft-repeated principle is that where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court.31 The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.32

We are also not impressed by petitioners' argument that the finding of gross negligence by the lower court as affirmed by the appellate court is not supported by evidence. The evidence reveals that two keys are required to open the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. One key is assigned to the guest while the other remains in the possession of the management. If the guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he must request the management for the other key to open the same. In other words, the guest alone cannot open the safety deposit box without the assistance of the management or its employees. With more reason that access to the safety deposit box should be denied if the one requesting for the opening of the safety deposit box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss of any item deposited in the safety deposit box, it is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in the consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss is force majeure.

Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master key of the management when the loss took place. In fact, they even admitted that they assisted Tan on three separate occasions in opening McLoughlin's safety deposit box.33 This only proves that Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person aside from the registered guest had access to the safety deposit box. Yet the management failed to notify McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed the matter to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the negligence of its employees.

The management should have guarded against the occurrence of this incident considering that Payam admitted in open court that she assisted Tan three times in opening the safety deposit box of McLoughlin at around 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 A.M. while the latter was still asleep.34 In light of the circumstances surrounding this case, it is undeniable that without the acquiescence of the employees of Tropicana to the opening of the safety deposit box, the loss of McLoughlin's money could and should have been avoided.

The management contends, however, that McLoughlin, by his act, made its employees believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always with him most of the time. The evidence on record, however, is bereft of any showing that McLoughlin introduced Tan to the management as his wife. Such an inference from the act of McLoughlin will not exculpate the petitioners from liability in the absence of any showing that he made the management believe that Tan was his wife or was duly authorized to have access to the safety deposit box. Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion considering that what is involved in the instant case is the very safety of McLoughlin's deposit. If only petitioners exercised due diligence in taking care of McLoughlin's safety deposit box, they should have confronted him as to his relationship with Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlin's safety deposit box a number of times at the early hours of the morning. Tan's acts should have prompted the management to investigate her relationship with McLoughlin. Then, petitioners would have exercised due diligence required of them. Failure to do so warrants the conclusion that the management had been remiss in complying with the obligations imposed upon hotel-keepers under the law.

Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for damages. As to who shall bear the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Also, this Court has ruled that if an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the victim to prove the negligence of such employer.35 Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlin's money was consummated through the negligence of Tropicana's employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box without the guest's consent, both the assisting employees and YHT Realty Corporation itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2193.36

The issue of whether the "Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box" executed by McLoughlin is tainted with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for resolution in this petition. Notably, both the trial court and the appellate court found the same to be null and void. We find no reason to reverse their common conclusion. Article 2003 is controlling, thus:

Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 200137 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.

Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policy precisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like the common carrier's business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called "undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.

In an early case,38 the Court of Appeals through its then Presiding Justice (later Associate Justice of the Court) Jose P. Bengzon, ruled that to hold hotelkeepers or innkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn.39 With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items are taken without the guest's knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself, as in this case.

Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "undertaking" manifestly contravene Article 2003 of the New Civil Code for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.40 Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar any claim against

Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.41 It is the loss through force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the act of the thief or robber was done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify the same as force majeure.42

Petitioners likewise anchor their defense on Article 200243 which exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors. Even a cursory reading of the provision would lead us to reject petitioners' contention. The justification they raise would render nugatory the public interest sought to be protected by the provision. What if the negligence of the employer or its employees facilitated the consummation of a crime committed by the registered guest's relatives or visitor? Should the law exculpate the hotel from liability since the loss was due to the act of the visitor of the registered guest of the hotel? Hence, this provision presupposes that the hotel-keeper is not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the occurrence of the loss. A depositary is not responsible for the loss of goods by theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.44

In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by the management since two keys are necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence in allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the guest's relatives and visitors.

Petitioners contend that McLoughlin's case was mounted on the theory of contract, but the trial court and the appellate court upheld the grant of the claims of the latter on the basis of tort.45 There is nothing anomalous in how the lower courts decided the controversy for this Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relations. The act that breaks the contract may also be tort.46

As to damages awarded to McLoughlin, we see no reason to modify the amounts awarded by the appellate court for the same were based on facts and law. It is within the province of lower courts to settle factual issues such as the proper amount of damages awarded and such finding is binding upon this Court especially if sufficiently proven by evidence and not unconscionable or excessive. Thus, the appellate court correctly awarded McLoughlin Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) and Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian dollars (AUS$4,500.00) or their peso equivalent at the time of payment,47 being the amounts duly proven by evidence.48The alleged loss that took place prior to 16 April 1988 was not considered since the amounts alleged to have been taken were not sufficiently established by evidence. The appellate court also correctly awarded the sum ofP308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sydney to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;49 one-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana;50 one-half ofP152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;51 one-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi or transportation expenses from McLoughlin's residence to Sydney Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips;52 one-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;53 one-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance.54

The amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages is reasonable. Although trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, the appellate court may modify or change the amount awarded when it is palpably and scandalously excessive.l^vvphi1.net Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant.l^vvphi1.net They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants' culpable action.55

The awards of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P200,000.00 representing attorney's fees are likewise sustained.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners are directed, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent

[G.R. No. 160544.  February 21, 2005]

TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2005.

G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.)

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision [1]cralaw dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City, Branch 148, in its Civil Case No. 98-838, an action for damages thereat filed by respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance, Company, Inc., against the herein petitioner, Triple-V Food Services, Inc.

On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 with plate number UBU 955, assigned to her by her employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa). On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter. A corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for the car. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated parking area. Few minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. (FMICI). Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc., thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch 148.

In its answer, petitioner argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle, claiming that it and its employees wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the discovery of the loss. Petitioner further argued that in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder it is so provided that "[Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables contained therein", a provision which, to petitioner's mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.

During trial, petitioner challenged FMICI's subrogation to Crispa's right to file a claim for the loss of the car, arguing that theft is not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 for the subject vehicle.

In a decision dated June 22, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment for respondent FMICI, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff (FMICI) and against the defendant Triple V (herein petitioner) and the latter is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the following:

1.  The amount of P669,500.00, representing actual damages plus compounded (sic);

2.  The amount of P30,000.00 as acceptance fee plus the amount equal to 25% of the total amount due as attorney's fees;

3.  The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4.  Plus, cost of suit.

Defendant Triple V is not therefore precluded from taking appropriate action against defendant Armando Madridano.

SO ORDERED.

Obviously displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating its argument that it was not a depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence and prudence in the safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and in the supervision of its employees. It further argued that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

In a decision dated October 21, 2003,[2]cralaw the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court, thus:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed June 22, 2001 Decision of the RTC of Makati City - Branch 148 in Civil Case No. 98-838 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

In so dismissing the appeal and affirming the appealed decision, the appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial court that: (a) petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle; (b) petitioner was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet attendant; and (c) there was a valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

Hence, petitioner's present recourse.

We agree with the two (2) courts below.

When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while eating at petitioner'sKamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car. Petitioner cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance, guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet parking service.

In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same.[3]cralaw A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor.

Specious is petitioner's insistence that the valet parking claim stub it issued to De Asis contains a clear exclusion of its liability and operates as an explicit waiver by the customer of any right to claim indemnity for any loss of or damage to the vehicle.

The parking claim stub embodying the terms and conditions of the parking, including that of relieving petitioner from any loss or damage to the car, is essentially a contract of adhesion, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner alone with no participation whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis, who merely adheres to the printed stipulations therein appearing. While contracts of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.[4]cralaw

Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner must not be allowed to use its parking claim stub's exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any responsibility for any loss or damage to vehicles or to the valuables contained therein. Here, it is evident that De Asis deposited the car in question with the petitioner as part of the latter's enticement for customers by providing them a safe parking space within the vicinity of its restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added attraction to petitioner's restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow assured that their vehicle are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk. Having entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer De Asis, like all of petitioner's customers, fully expects the security of her car while at petitioner's premises/designated parking areas and its safe return at the end of her visit at petitioner's restaurant.

Petitioner's argument that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and FMICI because theft was not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 holds no water.

Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 which respondent FMICI issued to Crispa contains, among others things, the following item: "Insured's Estimate of Value of Scheduled Vehicle- P800.000".[5]cralaw On the basis of such item, the trial court concluded that the coverage includes a full comprehensive insurance of the vehicle in case of damage or loss. Besides, Crispa paid a premium of P10,304 to cover theft. This is clearly shown in the breakdown of premiums in the same policy.[6]cralaw Thus, having indemnified CRISPA for the stolen car, FMICI, as correctly ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispa's rights against petitioner, pursuant to Article 2207 of the New Civil Code[7].

Anent the trial court's findings of negligence on the part of the petitioner, which findings were affirmed by the appellate court, we have consistently ruled that findings of facts of trial courts, more so when affirmed, as here, by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court itself ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts and circumstances which, if considered, warrant a reversal of the outcome of the case.[8]cralaw This is not so in the case at bar. For, we have ourselves reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 73271 May 29, 1987

SPOUSES TIRSO I. VINTOLA and LORETO DY VINTOLA, defendants-appellants, vs.INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, plaintiff-appellee.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

This case was appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which, however, certified the same to this Court, the issue involved being purely legal.

The facts are not disputed.

On August 20, 1975 the spouses Tirso and Loreta Vintola (the VINTOLAS, for short), doing business under the name and style "Dax Kin International," engaged in the manufacture of raw sea shells into finished products, applied for and were granted a domestic letter of credit by the Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA), Cebu City. 1 in the amount of P40,000.00. The Letter of Credit authorized the bank to negotiate for their account drafts drawn by their supplier, one Stalin Tan, on Dax Kin International for the purchase of puka and olive seashells. In consideration thereof, the VINTOLAS, jointly and severally, agreed to pay the bank "at maturity, in Philippine currency, the equivalent, of the aforementioned amount or such portion thereof as may be drawn or paid, upon the faith of the said credit together with the usual charges."

On the same day, August 20, 1975, having received from Stalin Tan the puka and olive shells worth P40,000.00, the VINTOLAS executed a Trust Receipt agreement with IBAA, Cebu City. Under that Agreement, the VINTOLAS agreed to hold the goods in trust for IBAA as the "latter's property with liberty to sell the same for its account, " and "in case of sale" to turn over the proceeds as soon as received to (IBAA) the due date indicated in the document was October 19, 1975.

Having defaulted on their obligation, IBAA demanded payment from the VINTOLAS in a letter dated January 1, 1976. The VINTOLAS, who were unable to dispose of the shells, responded by offering to return the goods. IBAA refused to accept the merchandise, and due to the continued refusal of the VINTOLAS to make good their undertaking, IBAA charged them with Estafa for having misappropriated, misapplied and converted for their own personal use and benefit the aforesaid goods. During the trial of the criminal case the VINTOLAS turned over the seashells to the custody of the Trial Court.

On April 12, 1982, the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VII, acquitted the VINTOLAS of the crime charged, after finding that the element of misappropriation or conversion was inexistent. Concluded the Court:

Finally, it should be mentioned that under the trust receipt, in the event of default and/or non-fulfillment on the part of the accused of their undertaking, the bank is entitled to take possession of the goods or to recover its equivalent value together with the usual charges. In either case, the remedy of the Bank is civil and not criminal in nature. ... 2

Shortly thereafter, IBAA commenced the present civil action to recover the value of the goods before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XVI.

Holding that the complaint was barred by the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case, said Court dismissed the complaint. However, on IBAA's motion, the Court granted reconsideration and:

1. Order(ed)defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Two and 27/100 (P72,982.27), Philippine Currency, plus interest of 14% per annum and service charge of one (1%) per cent per annum computed from judicial demand and until the obligation is fully paid;

2. Ordered defendants jointly and severally to pay attorney's fees to the plaintiff in the sum of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) pesos, Philippine Currency, plus costs of the suit. 3

The VINTOLAS rest their present appeal on the principal allegation that their acquittal in the Estafa case bars IBAA's filing of the civil action because IBAA had not reserved in the criminal case its right to enforce separately their civil liability. They maintain that by intervening actively in the prosecution of the criminal case through a private prosecutor, IBAA had chosen to file the civil action impliedly with the criminal action, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, reading:

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil action. — When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately. ...

and that since the judgment in the criminal case had made a declaration that the facts from which the civil action might arise did not exist, the filing of the civil action arising from the offense is now barred, as provided by Section 3-b of Rule 111 of the same Rules providing:

(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction in the manner provided by law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered.

Further, the VINTOLAS take the position that their obligation to IBAA has been extinguished inasmuch as, through no fault of their own, they were unable to dispose of the seashells, and that they have relinguished possession thereof to the IBAA, as owner of the goods, by depositing them with the Court.

The foregoing submission overlooks the nature and mercantile usage of the transaction involved. A letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement is endowed with its own distinctive features and characteristics. Under that set-up, a bank extends a loan covered by the Letter of Credit, with the trust receipt as a security for the loan. In other words, the transaction involves a loan feature represented by the letter of credit, and a security feature which is in the covering trust receipt.

Thus, Section 4 of P.D. No. 115 defines a trust receipt transaction as:

... any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt"

wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instrument thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any one of the following:

1. In the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or procure their sale, ...

A trust receipt, therefore, is a security agreement, pursuant to which a bank acquires a "security interest" in the goods. "It secures an indebtedness and there can be no such thing as security interest that secures no obligation." 4 As defined in our laws:

(h) "Security Interest"means a property interest in goods, documents or instruments to secure performance of some obligations of the entrustee or of some third persons to the entruster and includes title, whether or not expressed to be absolute, whenever such title is in substance taken or retained for security only. 5

As elucidated in Samo vs. People 6 "a trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral of the merchandise imported or purchased."

Contrary to the allegation of the VINTOLAS, IBAA did not become the real owner of the goods. It was merely the holder of a security title for the advances it had made to the VINTOLAS The goods the VINTOLAS had purchased through IBAA financing remain their own property and they hold it at their own risk. The trust receipt arrangement did not convert the IBAA into an investor; the latter remained a lender and creditor.

... for the bank has previously extended a loan which the L/C represents to the importer, and by that loan, the importer should be the real owner of the goods. If under the trust receipt, the bank is made to appear as the owner, it was but an artificial expedient, more of a legal fiction than fact, for if it were so, it could dispose of the goods in any manner it wants, which it cannot do, just to give consistency with the purpose of the trust receipt of giving a stronger security for the loan obtained by the importer. To consider the bank as the true owner from the inception of the transaction would be to disregard the loan feature thereof. ... 7

Since the IBAA is not the factual owner of the goods, the VINTOLAS cannot justifiably claim that because they have surrendered the goods to IBAA and subsequently deposited them in the custody of the court, they are absolutely relieved of their obligation to pay their loan because of their inability to dispose of the goods. The fact that they were unable to sell the seashells in question does not affect IBAA's right to recover the advances it had made under the Letter of Credit. In so arguing, the VINTOLAS conveniently close their eyes to their application for a Letter of Credit wherein they expressly obligated themselves in these terms:

IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, I/we promise and agree to pay you at maturity in Philippine Currency the equivalent of the above amount or such portion thereof as may be drawn or paid upon the faith of said credit together with the usual charges. ... (Exhibit "A")

They further agreed that their marginal deposit of P8,000.00, later increased to P11,000.00

be applied, without further proceedings or formalities to pay or reduce our obligation under this letter of credit or its corresponding Trust Receipt. (Emphasis supplied) 8

The foregoing premises considered, it follows that the acquittal of the VINTOLAS in the Estafa case is no bar to the institution of a civil action for collection. It is inaccurate for the VINTOLAS to claim that the judgment in the estafa case had declared that the facts from which the civil action might arise, did not exist, for, it will be recalled that the decision of acquittal expressly declared that "the remedy of the Bank is civil and not criminal in nature." This amounts to a reservation of the civil action in IBAA's favor, for the Court would not have dwelt on a civil liability that it had intended to extinguish by the same decision. 9 The VINTOLAS are liable ex contractu for breach of the Letter of Credit — Trust Receipt, whether they did or they did not "misappropriate, misapply or convert" the merchandise as charged in the criminal case. 10 Their civil liability does not arise ex delicto, the action for the recovery of which would have been deemed instituted with the criminal-action (unless waived or reserved) and where acquittal based on a judicial declaration that the criminal acts charged do not exist would have extinguished the civil action. 11 Rather, the civil suit instituted by IBAA is based ex contractu and as such is distinct and independent from any criminal proceedings and may proceed regardless of the result of the latter. Under the situational circumstances of the parties, they are governed by Article 31 of the Civil Code, explicitly providing:

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 119231. April 18, 1996]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. PRES. JUDGE BENITO C. SE, JR., RTC, BR. 45, MANILA; NOAH’S ARK SUGAR REFINERY; ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, JIMMY T. GO and WILSON T. GO, respondents.SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW; THE UNCONDITIONAL PRESENTMENT OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT CARRIED WITH IT THE ADMISSIONS OF THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THE WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS, INCLUDING THE UNQUALIFIED RECOGNITION OF THE PAYMENT OF WAREHOUSEMAN’S LIEN FOR STORAGE FEES AND PRESERVATION EXPENSES; CASE AT BAR. - Petitioner is in estoppel in disclaiming liability for the payment of storage fees due the private respondents as warehouseman while claiming to be entitled to the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts on the basis of which it anchors its claim for payment or delivery of the sugar stocks. The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the petitioner for payment against private respondents on the strength of the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137) carried with it the admission of the existence and validity of the terms, conditions and stipulations written on the face of the Warehouse Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the payment of warehouseman’s lien for storage fees and preservation expenses. Petitioner may not now retrieve the sugar stocks without paying the lien due private respondents as warehouseman.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAREHOUSEMAN’S LIEN; POSSESSORY IN NATURE. - While the PNB is entitled to the stocks of sugar as the endorsee of the quedans, delivery to it shall be effected only upon payment of the storage fees. Imperative is the right of the warehouseman to demand payment of his lien at this juncture, because, in accordance with Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien may be lost where the warehouseman surrenders the possession of the goods without requiring payment of his lien, because a warehouseman’s lien is possessory in nature.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rolan A. Nieto for petitioner.Madella & Cruz Law Offices for private respondents.D E C I S I O NHERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

The source of conflict herein is the question as to whether the Philippine National Bank should pay storage fees for sugar stocks covered by five (5) Warehouse Receipts stored in the warehouse of private respondents in the face of the Court of Appeals’ decision (affirmed by the Supreme Court) declaring the Philippine National Bank as the owner of the said sugar stocks and ordering their delivery to the said bank. From the same facts but on a different perspective, it can be said that the issue is: Can the warehouseman enforce his warehouseman’s lien before delivering the sugar stocks as ordered by the Court of Appeals or need he file a separate action to enforce payment of storage fees?

The herein petition seeks to annul: (1) the Resolution of respondent Judge Benito C. Se, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45, dated December 20, 1994, in Civil Case No. 90-53023, authorizing reception of evidence to establish the claim of respondents Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery, et al., for storage fees and preservation expenses over sugar stocks covered by five (5) Warehouse Receipts which is in the nature of a warehouseman’s lien; and (2) the Resolution of the said respondent Judge, dated March 1, 1995, declaring the validity of private respondents’ warehouseman’s lien under Section 27 of Republic Act No 2137 and ordering that execution of the Court of Appeals’ decision, dated December 13, 1991, be in effect held in abeyance until the full amount of the warehouseman’s lien on the sugar stocks covered by five (5) quedans subject of the action shall have been satisfied conformably with the provisions of Section 31 of Republic Act 2137.

Also prayed for by the petition is a Writ of Prohibition to require respondent RTC Judge to desist from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 90-53023, except order the execution of the Supreme Court judgment; and a Writ of Mandamus to compel respondent RTC Judge to issue a Writ of Execution in accordance with the said executory Supreme Court decision.

THE FACTS

In accordance with Act No. 2137, the Warehouse Receipts Law, Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery issued on several dates, the following Warehouse Receipts (Quedans): (a) March 1, 1989, Receipt No. 18062, covering sugar deposited by Rosa Sy; (b) March 7, 1989, Receipt No. 18080, covering sugar deposited by RNS Merchandising (Rosa Ng Sy); (c) March 21, 1989, Receipt No. 18081, covering sugar deposited by St. Therese Merchandising; (d)March 31, 1989, Receipt No. 18086, covering sugar deposited by St. Therese Merchandising; and (e) April 1, 1989, Receipt No. 18087, covering sugar deposited by RNS Merchandising. The receipts are substantially in the form, and contains the terms, prescribed for negotiable warehouse receipts by Section 2 of the law.

Subsequently, Warehouse Receipts Nos. 18080 and 18081 were negotiated and endorsed to Luis T. Ramos; and Receipts Nos. 18086, 18087 and 18062 were negotiated and endorsed to Cresencia K. Zoleta. Ramos and Zoleta then used the quedans as security for two loan agreements - one for P15.6 million and the other for P23.5 million - obtained by them from the Philippine National Bank. The aforementioned quedans were endorsed by them to the Philippine National Bank.

Luis T. Ramos and Cresencia K. Zoleta failed to pay their loans upon maturity on January 9, 1990. Consequently, on March 16, 1990, the Philippine National Bank wrote to Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery demanding delivery of the sugar stocks covered by the quedans endorsed to it by Zoleta and Ramos. Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery refused to comply with the demand alleging ownership thereof, for which reason the Philippine National Bank filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a verified complaint for “Specific Performance with Damages and Application for Writ of Attachment” against Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery, Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, the last three being identified as the sole proprietor, managing partner, and Executive Vice President of Noah’s Ark, respectively.

Respondent Judge Benito C. Se, Jr., in whose sala the case was raffled, denied the Application for Preliminary Attachment. Reconsideration therefor was likewise denied.

Noah’s Ark and its co-defendants filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint in which they claimed that they are the owners of the subject quedans and the sugar represented therein, averring as they did that:

“9.*** In an agreement dated April 1, 1989, defendants agreed to sell to Rosa Ng Sy of RNS Merchandising and Teresita Ng of St. Therese Merchandising the total volume of sugar indicated in the quedans stored at Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery for a total consideration of P63,000,000.00,

*** The corresponding payments in the form of checks issued by the vendees in favor of defendants were subsequently dishonored by the drawee banks by reason of ‘payment stopped’ and ‘drawn against insufficient funds,’

*** Upon proper notification to said vendees and plaintiff in due course, defendants refused to deliver to vendees therein the quantity of sugar covered by the subject quedans.

10. *** Considering that the vendees and first endorsers of subject quedans did not acquire ownership thereof, the subsequent endorsers and plaintiff itself did not acquire a better right of ownership than the original vendees/first endorsers. “1

The Answer incorporated a Third-Party Complaint by Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, doing business under the trade name and style Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery against Rosa Ng Sy and Teresita Ng, praying that the latter be ordered to deliver or return to them the quedans (previously endorsed to PNB and the subject of the suit) and pay damages and litigation expenses.

The Answer of Rosa Ng Sy and Teresita Ng, dated September 6, 1990, one of avoidance, is essentially to the effect that the transaction between them, on the one hand, and Jimmy T. Go, on the other, concerning the quedans and the sugar stocks covered by them was merely a simulated one being part of the latter’s complex banking schemes and financial maneuvers, and thus, they are not answerable in damages to him.

On January 31, 1991, the Philippine National Bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendants for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

On May 2, 1991, the Regional Trial Court issued an order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment. Thereupon, the Philippine National Bank filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938 on December 13, 1991.

Pertinent portions of the decision of the Court of Appeals read:

“In issuing the questioned Orders, the respondent Court ruled that ‘questions of law should be resolved after and not before, the questions of fact are properly litigated.’ A scrutiny of defendant’s affirmative defenses does not show material questions of fact as to the alleged nonpayment of purchase price by the vendees/first endorsers, and which nonpayment is not disputed by PNB as it does not materially affect PNB’s title to the sugar stocks as holder of the negotiable quedans.

What is determinative of the propriety of summary judgment is not the existence of conflicting claims from prior parties but whether from an examination of the pleadings, depositions, admissions and documents on file, the defenses as to the main issue do not tender material questions of fact (see Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 815) or the issues thus tendered are in fact sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith or so unsubstantial as not to constitute genuine issues for trial. (See Vergara vs. Suelto, et al., 156 SCRA 753; Mercado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75). The questioned Orders themselves do not specify what material facts are in issue. (See Sec. 4, Rule 34, Rules of Court).

To require a trial notwithstanding pertinent allegations of the pleadings and other facts appearing on the record, would constitute a waste of time and an injustice to the PNB whose rights to relief to which it is plainly entitled would be further delayed to its prejudice.

In issuing the questioned Orders, We find the respondent Court to have acted in grave abuse of discretion which justify holding null and void and setting aside the Orders dated May 2 and July 4, 1990 of respondent Court, and that a summary judgment be rendered forthwith in favor of the PNB against Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery, et al., as prayed for in petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.“2

On December 13, 1991, the Court of Appeals nullified and set aside the orders of May 2 and July 4, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court and ordered the trial court to render summary judgment in favor of the PNB. On June 18, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint against private respondents for lack of cause of action and likewise dismissed private respondents’ counterclaim against PNB and of the Third-Party Complaint and the Third-Party Defendant’s Counterclaim. On September 4, 1992, the trial court denied PNB’s Motion for Reconsideration.

On June 9, 1992, the PNB filed an appeal from the RTC decision with the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 107243, by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court rendered judgment on September 1, 1993, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the trial judge’s decision in Civil Case No. 90-53023, dated June 18, 1992, is reversed and set aside and a new one rendered conformably with the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R SP. No. 25938, ordering the private respondents Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery, Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, jointly and severally:

(a) to deliver to the petitioner Philippine National Bank, ‘the sugar stocks covered by the Warehouse Receipts/ Quedans which are now in the latter’s possession as holder for value and in due course; or alternatively, to pay (said) plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P39.1 million,’ with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until full payment; and

(b) to pay plaintiff Philippine National Bank attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and judicial costs hereby fixed at the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) as well as the costs.

SO ORDERED.”3

On September 29, 1993, private respondents moved for reconsideration of this decision. A Supplemental/Second Motion for Reconsideration with leave of court was filed by private respondents on November 8, 1993. We denied private respondents’ motion on January 10, 1994. .

Private respondents filed a Motion Seeking Clarification of the Decision, dated September 1, 1993. We denied this motion in this manner:

“It bears stressing that the relief granted in this Court’s decision of September 1, 1993 is precisely that set out in the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25938, dated December 13, 1991, which was affirmed in toto by this Court and which became unalterable upon becoming final and executory. “4

Private respondents thereupon filed before the trial court an Omnibus Motion seeking among others the deferment of the proceedings until private respondents are heard on their claim for warehouseman’s lien. On the other hand, on August 22, 1994, the Philippine National Bank filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution and an Opposition to the Omnibus Motion filed by private respondents.

The trial court granted private respondents’ Omnibus Motion on December 20, 1994 and set reception of evidence on their claim for warehouseman’s lien. The resolution of the PNB’s Motion for Execution was ordered deferred until the determination of private respondents’ claim.

On February 21, 1995, private respondents’ claim for lien was heard and evidence was received in support thereof. The trial court thereafter gave both parties five (5) days to file respective memoranda.

On February 28, 1995, the Philippine National Bank filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Nullify Court Proceedings. In adjudication thereof, the trial court issued the following order on March 1, 1995:

“WHEREFORE, this court hereby finds that there exists in favor of the defendants a valid warehouseman’s lien under Section 27 of Republic Act 2137 and accordingly, execution of the judgment is hereby ordered stayed and/ or precluded until the full amount of defendants’ lien on the sugar stocks covered by the five (5) quedans subject of this action shall have been satisfied conformably with the provisions of Section 31 of Republic Act 2137. “5

Consequently, the Philippine National Bank filed the herein petition to seek the nullification of the above-assailed orders of respondent judge.

The PNB submits that:

“I

PNB’s RIGHT TO A WRIT OF EXECUTION IS SUPPORTED BY TWO FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISIONS: THE DECEMBER 13, 1991 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN CA-G.R. SP. NO. 25938; AND, THE NOVEMBER 9, 1992 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R NO. 107243. RESPONDENT RTC’S MINISTERIAL AND MANDATORY DUTY IS TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF EXECUTION TO IMPLEMENT THE DECRETAL PORTION OF SAID SUPREME COURT DECISION

II

RESPONDENT RTC IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ OMNIBUS MOTION. THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN SAID MOTION: (1) WERE ALREADY REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS MARCH 9, 1994 RESOLUTION DENYING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ ‘MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DECISION’ IN .G.R. NO. 107243; AND (2) ARE BARRED FOREVER BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ FAILURE TO INTERPOSE THEM IN THEIR ANSWER, AND FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM THE JUNE 18, 1992 RTC DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 90-52023

III

RESPONDENT RTC’S ONLY JURISDICTION IS TO ISSUE THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. THUS, PNB IS ENTITLED TO: (1) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ANNUL THE RTC RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 20, 1994 AND THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1995 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY THE RTC THEREAFTER; (2) A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PREVENT RESPONDENT RTC FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH CIVIL CASE NO. 90-53023 AND COMMITTING OTHER ACTS VIOLATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R. NO. 107243; AND (3) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RESPONDENT RTC TO ISSUE THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PNB”

The issues presented before us in this petition revolve around the legality of the questioned orders of respondent judge, issued as they were after we had denied with finality private respondents’ contention that the PNB could not compel them to deliver the stocks of sugar in their warehouse covered by the endorsed quedans or pay the value of the said stocks of sugar.

Petitioner’s submission is on a technicality, that is, that private respondents have lost their right to recover warehouseman’s lien on the sugar stocks covered by the five (5) Warehouse Receipts for the reason that they failed to set up said claim in their Answer before the trial court and that private respondents did not appeal from the decision in this regard, dated June 18, 1992. Petitioner asseverates that the denial by this Court on March 9, 1994 of the motion seeking clarification of our decision, dated September 1, 1993, has foreclosed private respondents’ right to enforce their warehouseman’s lien for storage fees and preservation expenses under the Warehouse Receipts Act.

On the other hand, private respondents maintain that they could not have claimed the right to a warehouseman’ s lien in their Answer to the complaint before the trial court as it would have been inconsistent with their stand that they claim ownership of the stocks covered by the quedans since the checks issued for payment thereof were dishonored. If they were still the owners, it would have been absurd for them to ask payment for storage fees and preservation expenses. They further contend that our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, denying their motion for clarification did not preclude their right to claim their warehouseman’s lien under Sections 27 and 31 of Republic Act 2137, as our resolution merely affirmed and adopted the earlier decision, dated December 13, 1991, of the Court of Appeals (6th Division) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938 and did not make any finding on the matter of the warehouseman’ s lien.

We find for private respondents on the foregoing issue and so the petition necessarily must fail.

We have carefully examined our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, which denied Noah’s Ark’s motion for clarification of our decision, dated September 1, 1993, wherein we affirmed in full and adopted the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision, dated December 13, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938. We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s argument that our said resolution carried with it the denial of the warehouseman’s lien over the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts. We have simply resolved and upheld in our decision, dated September 1, 1993, the propriety of summary judgment which was then assailed by private respondents. In effect, we ruled therein that, considering the circumstances obtaining before the trial court, the issuance of the Warehouse Receipts not being disputed by the private respondents, a summary judgment in favor of PNB was proper. We in effect further affirmed the finding that Noah’s Ark is a warehouseman which was obliged to deliver the sugar stocks covered by the Warehouse Receipts pledged by Cresencia K. Zoleta and Luis T. Ramos to the petitioner pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 2137.

In disposing of the private respondents’ motion for clarification, we could not contemplate the matter of warehouseman’s lien because the issue to be finally resolved then was the claim of private respondents for retaining ownership of the stocks of sugar covered by the endorsed quedans. Stated otherwise, there was no point in taking up the issue of warehouseman’s lien since the matter of ownership was as yet being determined. Neither could storage fees be due then while no one has been declared the owner of the sugar stocks in question.

Of considerable relevance is the pertinent stipulation in the subject Warehouse Receipts which provides for respondent Noah’s Ark’s right to impose and collect warehouseman’s lien:

“Storage of the refined sugar quantities mentioned herein shall be free up to one (1) week from the date of the quedans covering said sugar and thereafter, storage fees shall be charged in accordance with the Refining Contract under which the refined sugar covered by this Quedan was produced. “6

It is not disputed, therefore, that, under the subject Warehouse Receipts provision, storage fees are chargeable.

Petitioner anchors its claim against private respondents on the five (5) Warehouse Receipts issued by the latter to third-party defendants Rosa Ng Sy of RNS Merchandising and Teresita Ng of St. Therese Merchandising, which found their way to petitioner after they were negotiated to them by Luis T. Ramos and Cresencia K. Zoleta for a loan of P39.1 Million. Accordingly, petitioner PNB is legally bound to stand by the express terms and conditions on the face of the Warehouse Receipts as to the payment of storage fees. Even in the absence of such a provision, law and equity dictate the payment of the warehouseman’ s lien pursuant to Sections 27 and 31 of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137), to wit:

“SECTION 27. What claims are included in the warehouseman’s lien. - Subject to the provisions of section thirty, a warehouseman shall have lien on goods deposited or on the proceeds thereof in his hands, for all lawful charges for storage and preservation of the goods; also for all lawful claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor, weighing coopering and other charges and expenses in relation to such goods; also for all reasonable charges and expenses for notice, and advertisement of sale, and for sale of the goods where default has been made in satisfying the warehouseman’s lien.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 31. Warehouseman need not deliver until lien is satisfied. - A warehouseman having a lien valid against the person demanding the goods may refuse to deliver the goods to him until the lien is satisfied.”

After being declared not the owner, but the warehouseman, by the Court of Appeals on December 13, 1991 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938, the decision having been affirmed by us on December 1, 1993, private respondents cannot legally be deprived of their right to enforce their claim for warehouseman’s lien, for reasonable storage fees and preservation expenses. Pursuant to Section 31 which we quote hereunder, the goods under storage may not be delivered until said lien is satisfied.

“SECTION 31. Warehouseman need not deliver until lien is satisfied. - A warehouseman having a lien valid against the person demanding the goods may refuse to deliver the goods to him until the lien is satisfied.”

Considering that petitioner does not deny the existence, validity and genuineness of the Warehouse Receipts on which it anchors its claim for payment against private respondents, it cannot disclaim liability for the payment of the storage fees stipulated therein. As contracts, the receipts must be respected by authority of Article 1159 of the Civil Code, to wit:

“ART. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.”

Petitioner is in estoppel in disclaiming liability for the payment of storage fees due the private respondents as warehouseman while claiming to be entitled to the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts on the basis of which it anchors its claim for payment or delivery of the sugar stocks. The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the petitioner for payment against private respondents on the strength of the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137) carried with it the admission of the existence and validity of the terms, conditions and stipulations written on the face of the Warehouse Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the payment of warehouseman’s lien for storage fees and preservation expenses. Petitioner may not now retrieve the sugar stocks without paying the lien due private respondents as warehouseman.

In view of the foregoing, the rule may be simplified thus: While the PNB is entitled to the stocks of sugar as the endorsee of the quedans, delivery to it shall be effected only upon payment of the storage fees.

Imperative is the right of the warehouseman to demand payment of his lien at this juncture, because, in accordance with Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien may be lost where the warehouseman surrenders the possession of the goods without requiring payment of his lien, because a warehouseman’s lien is possessory in nature.

We, therefore, uphold and sustain the validity of the assailed orders of public respondent, dated December 20, 1994 and March 1, 1995.

In fine, we fail to see any taint of abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in issuing the questioned orders which recognized the legitimate right of Noah’s Ark, after being declared as warehouseman, to recover storage fees before it would release to the PNB sugar stocks covered by the five (5) Warehouse Receipts. Our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, did not preclude private respondents’ unqualified right to establish its claim to recover storage fees which is recognized under Republic Act No. 2137. Neither did the Court of Appeals’ decision, dated December 13, 1991, restrict such right.

Our Resolution’s reference to the decision by the Court of Appeals, dated December 13, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938, was intended to guide the parties in the subsequent disposition of the case to its final end. We certainly did not foreclose private respondents’ inherent right as warehouseman to collect storage fees and preservation expenses as stipulated n the face of each of the Warehouse Receipts and as provided for in the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137).

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is, hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned orders issued by public respondent judge are affirmed.

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 90828. September 5, 2000]MELVIN COLINARES and LORDINO VELOSO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:In 1979 Melvin Colinares and Lordino Veloso (hereafter Petitioners) were contracted for a consideration

of P40,000 by the Carmelite Sisters of Cagayan de Oro City to renovate the latter’s convent at Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City.

On 30 October 1979, Petitioners obtained 5,376 SF Solatone acoustical board 2’x4’x½”, 300 SF tanguile wood tiles 12”x12”, 260 SF Marcelo economy tiles and 2 gallons UMYLIN cement adhesive from CM Builders Centre for the construction project.[1] The following day, 31 October 1979, Petitioners applied for a commercial letter of credit[2] with the Philippine Banking Corporation, Cagayan de Oro City branch (hereafter PBC) in favor of CM Builders Centre. PBC approved the letter of credit[3] for P22,389.80 to cover the full invoice value of the goods. Petitioners signed a pro-forma trust receipt[4] as security. The loan was due on 29 January 1980.

On 31 October 1979, PBC debited P6,720 from Petitioners’ marginal deposit as partial payment of the loan.[5]

On 7 May 1980, PBC wrote[6] to Petitioners demanding that the amount be paid within seven days from notice. Instead of complying with PBC’s demand, Veloso confessed that they lost P19,195.83 in the Carmelite Monastery Project and requested for a grace period of until 15 June 1980 to settle the account.[7]

PBC sent a new demand letter[8]to Petitioners on 16 October 1980 and informed them that their outstanding balance as of 17 November 1979 was P20,824.40 exclusive of attorney’s fees of 25%.[9]

On 2 December 1980, Petitioners proposed[10] that the terms of payment of the loan be modified as follows: P2,000 on or before 3 December 1980, and P1,000 per month starting 31 January 1980 until the account is fully paid. Pending approval of the proposal, Petitioners paid P1,000 to PBC on 4 December 1980,[11] and thereafter P500 on 11 February 1981,[12] 16 March 1981,[13] and 20 April 1981.[14] Concurrently with the separate demand for attorney’s fees by PBC’s legal counsel, PBC continued to demand payment of the balance.[15]

On 14 January 1983, Petitioners were charged with the violation of P.D. No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information which was filed with Branch 18, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:That on or about October 31, 1979, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused entered into a trust receipt agreement with the Philippine Banking Corporation at Cagayan de Oro City wherein the accused, as entrustee, received from the entruster the following goods to wit:

Solatone Acoustical boardTanguile Wood TilesMarcelo Cement TilesUmylin Cement Adhesive

with a total value of P22,389.80, with the obligation on the part of the accused-entrustee to hold the aforesaid items in trust for the entruster and/or to sell on cash basis or otherwise dispose of the said items and to turn over to the entruster the proceeds of the sale of said goods or if there be no sale to return said items to the entruster on or before January 29, 1980 but that the said accused after receipt of the goods, with intent to defraud and cause damage to the entruster, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and refuse to remit the proceeds of the sale of the goods to the entruster despite repeated demands but instead converted, misappropriated and misapplied the proceeds to their own personal use, benefit and gain, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Banking Corporation, in the aforesaid sum of P22,389.80, Philippine Currency.Contrary to PD 115 in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.[16]

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1390.During trial, petitioner Veloso insisted that the transaction was a “clean loan” as per verbal guarantee of

Cayo Garcia Tuiza, PBC’s former manager. He and petitioner Colinares signed the documents without reading the fine print, only learning of the trust receipt implication much later.  When he brought this to the attention of PBC, Mr. Tuiza assured him that the trust receipt was a mere formality.[17]

On 7 July 1986, the trial court promulgated its decision [18] convicting Petitioners of estafa for violating P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer

imprisonment of two years and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, and to solidarily indemnify PBC the amount of P20,824.44, with legal interest from 29 January 1980, 12 % penalty charge per annum, 25% of the sums due as attorney’s fees, and costs.

The trial court considered the transaction between PBC and Petitioners as a trust receipt transaction under Section 4, P.D. No. 115. It considered Petitioners’ use of the goods in their Carmelite monastery project an act of “disposing” as contemplated under Section 13, P.D. No. 115, and treated the charge invoice [19] for goods issued by CM Builders Centre as a “document” within the meaning of Section 3 thereof.  It concluded that the failure of Petitioners to turn over the amount they owed to PBC constituted estafa.

Petitioners appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 05408. Petitioners asserted therein that the trial court erred in ruling that they violated the Trust Receipt Law, and in holding them criminally liable therefor. In the alternative, they contend that at most they can only be made civilly liable for payment of the loan.

In its decision[20] 6 March 1989, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court by increasing the penalty to six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. It held that the documentary evidence of the prosecution prevails over Veloso’s testimony, discredited Petitioners’ claim that the documents they signed were in blank, and disbelieved that they were coerced into signing them.

On 25 March 1989, Petitioners filed a Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration [21] alleging that the “Disclosure Statement on Loan/Credit Transaction”[22] (hereafter Disclosure Statement) signed by them and Tuiza was suppressed by PBC during the trial. That document would have proved that the transaction was indeed a loan as it bears a 14% interest as opposed to the trust receipt which does not at all bear any interest. Petitioners further maintained that when PBC allowed them to pay in installment, the agreement was novated and a creditor-debtor relationship was created.

In its resolution[23]of 16 October 1989 the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration because the alleged newly discovered evidence was actually forgotten evidence already in existence during the trial, and would not alter the result of the case.

Hence, Petitioners filed with us the petition in this case on 16 November 1989. They raised the following issues:I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, NAMELY, “DISCLOSURE ON LOAN/CREDIT TRANSACTION,” WHICH IF INTRODUCED AND ADMITTED, WOULD CHANGE THE JUDGMENT, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.2. ASSUMING THERE WAS A VALID TRUST RECEIPT, WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED WERE PROPERLY CHARGED, TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 13, PD NO. 115 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 315 PARAGRAPH (I) (B) NOTWITHSTANDING THE NOVATION OF THE SO-CALLED TRUST RECEIPT CONVERTING THE TRUSTOR-TRUSTEE RELATIONSHIP TO CREDITOR-DEBTOR SITUATION.

In its Comment of 22 January 1990, the Office of the Solicitor General urged us to deny the petition for lack of merit.

On 28 February 1990 Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground that they had already fully paid PBC on 2 February 1990 the amount of P70,000 for the balance of the loan, including interest and other charges, as evidenced by the different receipts issued by PBC,[24] and that the PBC executed an Affidavit of desistance.[25]

We required the Solicitor General to comment on the Motion to Dismiss.In its Comment of 30 July 1990, the Solicitor General opined that payment of the loan was akin to a

voluntary surrender or plea of guilty which merely serves to mitigate Petitioners’ culpability, but does not in any way extinguish their criminal liability.

In the Resolution of 13 August 1990, we gave due course to the Petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda.

The parties subsequently filed their respective memoranda.It was only on 18 May 1999 when this case was assigned to the ponente. Thereafter, we required the

parties to move in the premises and for Petitioners to manifest if they are still interested in the further prosecution of this case and inform us of their present whereabouts and whether their bail bonds are still valid.

Petitioners submitted their Compliance.

The core issues raised in the petition are the denial by the Court of Appeals of Petitioners’ Motion for New Trial and the true nature of the contract between Petitioners and the PBC.  As to the latter, Petitioners assert that it was an ordinary loan, not a trust receipt agreement under the Trust Receipts Law.

The grant or denial of a motion for new trial rests upon the discretion of the judge.  New trial may be granted if: (1) errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused; or (2) new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, and which, if introduced and admitted, would probably change the judgment.[26]

For newly discovered evidence to be a ground for new trial, such evidence must be (1) discovered after trial; (2) could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (3) material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.[27] It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.[28]

We find no indication in the pleadings that the Disclosure Statement is a newly discovered evidence.Petitioners could not have been unaware that the two-page document exists. The Disclosure Statement

itself states, “NOTICE TO BORROWER: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A COPY OF THIS PAPER WHICH YOU SHALL SIGN.”[29] Assuming Petitioners’ copy was then unavailable, they could have compelled its production in court,[30] which they never did. Petitioners have miserably failed to establish the second requisite of the rule on newly discovered evidence.

Petitioners themselves admitted that “they searched again their voluminous records, meticulously and patiently, until they discovered this new and material evidence” only upon learning of the Court of Appeals’ decision and after they were “shocked by the penalty imposed.”[31] Clearly, the alleged newly discovered evidence is mere forgotten evidence that jurisprudence excludes as a ground for new trial.[32]

However, the second issue should be resolved in favor of Petitioners.Section 4, P.D. No. 115, the Trust Receipts Law, defines a trust receipt transaction as any transaction by

and between a person referred to as the entruster, and another person referred to as the entrustee, whereby the entruster who owns or holds absolute title or security interest over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a “trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt.

There are two possible situations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by the provision which refers to money received under the obligation involving the duty to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold. The second is covered by the provision which refers to merchandise received under the obligation to “return” it (devolvera) to the owner.[33]

Failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, covered by the trust receipt to the entruster or to return said goods if they were not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall be punishable as estafa under Article 315 (1) of the Revised Penal Code,[34] without need of proving intent to defraud.

A thorough examination of the facts obtaining in the case at bar reveals that the transaction intended by the parties was a simple loan, not a trust receipt agreement.

Petitioners received the merchandise from CM Builders Centre on 30 October 1979. On that day, ownership over the merchandise was already transferred to Petitioners who were to use the materials for their construction project. It was only a day later, 31 October 1979, that they went to the bank to apply for a loan to pay for the merchandise.

This situation belies what normally obtains in a pure trust receipt transaction where goods are owned by the bank and only released to the importer in trust subsequent to the grant of the loan.  The bank acquires a “security interest” in the goods as holder of a security title for the advances it had made to the entrustee. [35] The ownership of the merchandise continues to be vested in the person who had advanced payment until he has been paid in full, or if the merchandise has already been sold, the proceeds of the sale should be turned over to him by the importer or by his representative or successor in interest. [36] To secure that the bank shall be paid, it takes full title to the goods at the very beginning and continues to hold that title as his indispensable security until the

goods are sold and the vendee is called upon to pay for them; hence, the importer has never owned the goods and is not able to deliver possession.[37] In a certain manner, trust receipts partake of the nature of a conditional sale where the importer becomes absolute owner of the imported merchandise as soon as he has paid its price.[38]

Trust receipt transactions are intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased.[39]

The antecedent acts in a trust receipt transaction consist of the application and approval of the letter of credit, the making of the marginal deposit and the effective importation of goods through the efforts of the importer.[40]

PBC attempted to cover up the true delivery date of the merchandise, yet the trial court took notice even though it failed to attach any significance to such fact in the judgment.  Despite the Court of Appeals’ contrary view that the goods were delivered to Petitioners previous to the execution of the letter of credit and trust receipt, we find that the records of the case speak volubly and this fact remains uncontroverted. It is not uncommon for us to peruse through the transcript of the stenographic notes of the proceedings to be satisfied that the records of the case do support the conclusions of the trial court.[41] After such perusal Grego Mutia, PBC’s credit investigator, admitted thus:

ATTY. CABANLET: (continuing)Q Do you know if the goods subject matter of this letter of credit and trust receipt agreement were received

by the accused?A Yes, sirQ Do you have evidence to show that these goods subject matter of this letter of credit and trust receipt were

delivered to the accused?A Yes, sir.Q I am showing to you this charge invoice, are you referring to this document?A Yes, sir.

xxxQ What is the date of the charge invoice?A October 31, 1979.COURT:Make it of record as appearing in Exhibit D, the zero in 30 has been superimposed with numeral 1.[42]

During the cross and re-direct examinations he also impliedly admitted that the transaction was indeed a loan. Thus:

Q In short the amount stated in your Exhibit C, the trust receipt was a loan to the accused you admit that?A Because in the bank the loan is considered part of the loan.

xxxRE-DIRECT BY ATTY. CABANLET:ATTY. CABANLET (to the witness)Q What do you understand by loan when you were asked?A Loan is a promise of a borrower from the value received. The borrower will pay the bank on a certain

specified date with interest[43]

Such statement is akin to an admission against interest binding upon PBC.Petitioner Veloso’s claim that they were made to believe that the transaction was a loan was also not

denied by PBC. He declared:Q Testimony was given here that that was covered by trust receipt. In short it was a special kind of

loan. What can you say as to that?A I don’t think that would be a trust receipt because we were made to understand by the manager who

encouraged us to avail of their facilities that they will be granting us a loan[44]

PBC could have presented its former bank manager, Cayo Garcia Tuiza, who contracted with Petitioners, to refute Veloso’s testimony, yet it only presented credit investigator Grego Mutia.Nowhere from Mutia’s testimony can it be gleaned that PBC represented to Petitioners that the transaction they were entering into was not a pure loan but had trust receipt implications.

The Trust Receipts Law does not seek to enforce payment of the loan, rather it punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner.[45] Here, it is crystal clear that on the part of Petitioners there was neither dishonesty nor

abuse of confidence in the handling of money to the prejudice of PBC. Petitioners continually endeavored to meet their obligations, as shown by several receipts issued by PBC acknowledging payment of the loan.

The Information charges Petitioners with intent to defraud and misappropriating the money for their personal use. The mala prohibita nature of the alleged offense notwithstanding, intent as a state of mind was not proved to be present in Petitioners’ situation. Petitioners employed no artifice in dealing with PBC and never did they evade payment of their obligation nor attempt to abscond. Instead, Petitioners sought favorable terms precisely to meet their obligation.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Petitioners are not importers acquiring the goods for re-sale, contrary to the express provision embodied in the trust receipt. They are contractors who obtained the fungible goods for their construction project. At no time did title over the construction materials pass to the bank, but directly to the Petitioners from CM Builders Centre. This impresses upon the trust receipt in question vagueness and ambiguity, which should not be the basis for criminal prosecution in the event of violation of its provisions.[46]

The practice of banks of making borrowers sign trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and place them under the threats of criminal prosecution should they be unable to pay it may be unjust and inequitable, if not reprehensible. Such agreements are contracts of adhesion which borrowers have no option but to sign lest their loan be disapproved. The resort to this scheme leaves poor and hapless borrowers at the mercy of banks, and is prone to misinterpretation, as had happened in this case. Eventually, PBC showed its true colors and admitted that it was only after collection of the money, as manifested by its Affidavit of Desistance.

WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of 6 March 1989 and the Resolution of 16 October 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. No. 05408 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Petitioners are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged, i.e., for violation of P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

No costs.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 146717             November 22, 2004

TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED and SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

Subject of this case is the letter of credit which has evolved as the ubiquitous and most important device in international trade. A creation of commerce and businessmen, the letter of credit is also unique in the number of parties involved and its supranational character.

Petitioner has appealed from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61901 entitled "Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Oscar Pimentel, et al.," promulgated on 31 January 2001.2

On 26 March 1997, petitioner and respondent Luzon Hydro Corporation (hereinafter, LHC) entered into a Turnkey Contract3 whereby petitioner, as Turnkey Contractor, undertook to construct, on a turnkey basis, a seventy (70)-Megawatt hydro-electric power station at the Bakun River in the provinces of Benguet and Ilocos Sur (hereinafter, the Project). Petitioner was given the sole responsibility for the design, construction, commissioning, testing and completion of the Project.4

The Turnkey Contract provides that: (1) the target completion date of the Project shall be on 1 June 2000, or such later date as may be agreed upon between petitioner and respondent LHC or otherwise determined in accordance with the Turnkey Contract; and (2) petitioner is entitled to claim extensions of time (EOT) for reasons enumerated in the Turnkey Contract, among which are variations, force majeure, and delays caused by LHC itself.5 Further, in case of dispute, the parties are bound to settle their differences through mediation, conciliation and such other means enumerated under Clause 20.3 of the Turnkey Contract.6

To secure performance of petitioner's obligation on or before the target completion date, or such time for completion as may be determined by the parties' agreement, petitioner opened in favor of LHC two (2) standby letters of credit both dated 20 March 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securities"), to wit: Standby Letter of Credit No. E001126/8400 with the local branch of respondent Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ Bank)7 and Standby Letter of Credit No. IBDIDSB-00/4 with respondent Security Bank Corporation (SBC)8each in the amount of US$8,988,907.00.9

In the course of the construction of the project, petitioner sought various EOT to complete the Project. The extensions were requested allegedly due to several factors which prevented the completion of the Project on target date, such as force majeure occasioned by typhoon Zeb, barricades and demonstrations. LHC denied the requests, however. This gave rise to a series of legal actions between the parties which culminated in the instant petition.

The first of the actions was a Request for Arbitration which LHC filed before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on 1 June 1999.10 This was followed by another Request for Arbitration, this time filed by petitioner before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)11 on 3 November 2000. In both arbitration proceedings, the common issues presented were: [1) whether typhoon Zeb and any of its associated events constituted force majeure to justify the extension of time sought by petitioner; and [2) whether LHC had the right to terminate the Turnkey Contract for failure of petitioner to complete the Project on target date.

Meanwhile, foreseeing that LHC would call on the Securities pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Turnkey Contract,12 petitioner—in two separate letters13 both dated 10 August 2000—advised respondent banks of the arbitration proceedings already pending before the CIAC and ICC in connection with its alleged default in the performance of its obligations. Asserting that LHC had no right to call on the Securities until the resolution of disputes before the arbitral tribunals, petitioner warned respondent banks that any transfer, release, or disposition of the Securities in favor of LHC or any person claiming under LHC would constrain it to hold respondent banks liable for liquidated damages.

As petitioner had anticipated, on 27 June 2000, LHC sent notice to petitioner that pursuant to Clause 8.214 of the Turnkey Contract, it failed to comply with its obligation to complete the Project. Despite the letters of petitioner, however, both banks informed petitioner that they would pay on the Securities if and when LHC calls on them.15

LHC asserted that additional extension of time would not be warranted; accordingly it declared petitioner in default/delay in the performance of its obligations under the Turnkey Contract and demanded from petitioner the payment of US$75,000.00 for each day of delay beginning 28 June 2000 until actual completion of the Project pursuant to Clause 8.7.1 of the Turnkey Contract. At the same time, LHC served notice that it would call on the securities for the payment of liquidated damages for the delay.16

On 5 November 2000, petitioner as plaintiff filed a Complaint for Injunction, with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, against herein respondents as defendants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.17 Petitioner sought to restrain respondent LHC from calling on the Securities and respondent banks from transferring, paying on, or in any manner disposing of the Securities or any renewals or substitutes thereof. The RTC issued a seventy-two (72)-hour temporary restraining order on the same day. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-1312 and raffled to Branch 148 of the RTC of Makati.

After appropriate proceedings, the trial court issued an Order on 9 November 2000, extending the temporary restraining order for a period of seventeen (17) days or until 26 November 2000.18

The RTC, in its Order19 dated 24 November 2000, denied petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. It ruled that petitioner had no legal right and suffered no irreparable injury to justify the issuance of the writ. Employing the principle of "independent contract" in letters of credit, the trial court ruled that LHC should be allowed to draw on the Securities for liquidated damages. It debunked petitioner's contention that the principle of "independent contract" could be invoked only by respondent banks since according to it respondent LHC is the ultimate beneficiary of the Securities. The trial court further ruled that the banks were mere custodians of the funds and as such they were obligated to transfer the same to the beneficiary for as long as the latter could submit the required certification of its claims.

Dissatisfied with the trial court's denial of its application for a writ of preliminary injunction, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.20 Petitioner submitted to the appellate court that LHC's call on the Securities was premature considering that the issue of its default had not yet been resolved with finality by the CIAC and/or the ICC. It asserted that until the fact of delay could be established, LHC had no right to draw on the Securities for liquidated damages.

Refuting petitioner's contentions, LHC claimed that petitioner had no right to restrain its call on and use of the Securities as payment for liquidated damages. It averred that the Securities are independent of the main contract between them as shown on the face of the two Standby Letters of Credit which both provide that the banks have no responsibility to investigate the authenticity or accuracy of the certificates or the declarant's capacity or entitlement to so certify.

In its Resolution dated 28 November 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining LHC from calling on the Securities or any renewals or substitutes thereof and ordering respondent banks to cease and desist from transferring, paying or in any manner disposing of the Securities.

However, the appellate court failed to act on the application for preliminary injunction until the temporary restraining order expired on 27 January 2001. Immediately thereafter, representatives of LHC trooped to ANZ Bank and withdrew the total amount of US$4,950,000.00, thereby reducing the balance in ANZ Bank to US$1,852,814.00.

On 2 February 2001, the appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari. The appellate court expressed conformity with the trial court's decision that LHC could call on the Securities pursuant to the first principle in credit law that the credit itself is independent of the underlying transaction and that as long as the beneficiary complied with the credit, it was of no moment that he had not complied with the underlying contract. Further, the appellate court held that even assuming that the trial court's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction was erroneous, it constituted only an error of judgment which is not correctible by certiorari, unlike error of jurisdiction.

Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review raising the following issues for resolution:

WHETHER THE "INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE" ON LETTERS OF CREDIT MAY BE INVOKED BY A BENEFICIARY THEREOF WHERE THE BENEFICIARY'S CALL THEREON IS WRONGFUL OR FRAUDULENT.

WHETHER LHC HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL AND DRAW ON THE SECURITIES BEFORE THE RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER'S AND LHC'S DISPUTES BY THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL.

WHETHER ANZ BANK AND SECURITY BANK ARE JUSTIFIED IN RELEASING THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE SECURITIES DESPITE BEING NOTIFIED THAT LHC'S CALL THEREON IS WRONGFUL.

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WILL SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IN THE EVENT THAT:

A. LHC IS ALLOWED TO CALL AND DRAW ON, AND ANZ BANK AND SECURITY BANK ARE ALLOWED TO RELEASE, THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THE SECURITIES PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND LHC.

B. LHC DOES NOT RETURN THE AMOUNTS IT HAD WRONGFULLY DRAWN FROM THE SECURITIES.21

Petitioner contends that the courts below improperly relied on the "independence principle" on letters of credit when this case falls squarely within the "fraud exception rule." Respondent LHC deliberately misrepresented the supposed existence of delay despite its knowledge that the issue was still pending arbitration, petitioner continues.

Petitioner asserts that LHC should be ordered to return the proceeds of the Securities pursuant to the principle against unjust enrichment and that, under the premises, injunction was the appropriate remedy obtainable from the competent local courts.

On 25 August 2003, petitioner filed a Supplement to the Petition22 and Supplemental Memorandum,23 alleging that in the course of the proceedings in the ICC Arbitration, a number of documentary and testimonial evidence came out through the use of different modes of discovery available in the ICC Arbitration. It contends that after the filing of the petition facts and admissions were discovered which demonstrate that LHC knowingly misrepresented that petitioner had incurred delays— notwithstanding its knowledge and admission that delays were excused under the Turnkey Contract—to be able to draw against the Securities. Reiterating that fraud constitutes an exception to the independence principle, petitioner urges that this warrants a ruling from this Court that the call on the Securities was wrongful, as well as contrary to law and basic principles of equity. It avers that it would suffer grave irreparable damage if LHC would be allowed to use the proceeds of the Securities and not ordered to return the amounts it had wrongfully drawn thereon.

In its Manifestation dated 8 September 2003,24 LHC contends that the supplemental pleadings filed by petitioner present erroneous and misleading information which would change petitioner's theory on appeal.

In yet another Manifestation dated 12 April 2004,25 petitioner alleges that on 18 February 2004, the ICC handed down its Third Partial Award, declaring that LHC wrongfully drew upon the Securities and that petitioner was entitled to the return of the sums wrongfully taken by LHC for liquidated damages.

LHC filed a Counter-Manifestation dated 29 June 2004,26 stating that petitioner's Manifestation dated 12 April 2004 enlarges the scope of its Petition for Review of the 31 January 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals. LHC notes that the Petition for Review essentially dealt only with the issue of whether injunction could issue to restrain the beneficiary of an irrevocable letter of credit from drawing thereon. It adds that petitioner has filed two other proceedings, to wit: (1) ICC Case No. 11264/TE/MW, entitled "Transfield Philippines Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation," in which the parties made claims and counterclaims arising from petitioner's performance/misperformance of its obligations as contractor for LHC; and (2) Civil Case No. 04-332, entitled "Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation" before Branch 56 of the RTC of Makati, which is an action to enforce and obtain execution of the ICC's partial award mentioned in petitioner's Manifestation of 12 April 2004.

In its Comment to petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Addendum to Petitioner's Memorandum, LHC stresses that the question of whether the funds it drew on the subject letters of credit should be returned is outside the issue in this appeal. At any rate, LHC adds that the action to enforce the ICC's partial award is now fully within the Makati RTC's jurisdiction in Civil Case No. 04-332. LHC asserts that petitioner is engaged in forum-shopping by keeping this appeal and at the same time seeking the suit for enforcement of the arbitral award before the Makati court.

Respondent SBC in its Memorandum, dated 10 March 200327 contends that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. Invoking the independence principle, SBC argues that it was under no obligation to look into the validity or accuracy of the certification submitted by respondent LHC or into the latter's capacity or entitlement to so certify. It adds that the act sought to be enjoined by petitioner was already fait accompli and the present petition would no longer serve any remedial purpose.

In a similar fashion, respondent ANZ Bank in its Memorandum dated 13 March 200328 posits that its actions could not be regarded as unjustified in view of the prevailing independence principle under which it had no obligation to ascertain the truth of LHC's allegations that petitioner defaulted in its obligations. Moreover, it points out that since the Standby Letter of Credit No. E001126/8400 had been fully drawn, petitioner's prayer for preliminary injunction had been rendered moot and academic.

At the core of the present controversy is the applicability of the "independence principle" and "fraud exception rule" in letters of credit. Thus, a discussion of the nature and use of letters of credit, also referred to simply as "credits," would provide a better perspective of the case.

The letter of credit evolved as a mercantile specialty, and the only way to understand all its facets is to recognize that it is an entity unto itself. The relationship between the beneficiary and the issuer of a letter of credit is not strictly contractual, because both privity and a meeting of the minds are lacking, yet strict compliance with its terms is an enforceable right. Nor is it a third-party beneficiary contract, because the issuer must honor drafts drawn against a letter regardless of problems subsequently arising in the underlying contract. Since the bank's customer cannot draw on the letter, it does not function as an assignment by the customer to the beneficiary. Nor, if properly used, is it a contract of suretyship or guarantee, because it entails a primary liability following a default. Finally, it is not in itself a negotiable instrument, because it is not payable to order or bearer and is generally conditional, yet the draft presented under it is often negotiable.29

In commercial transactions, a letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying.30 The use of credits in commercial transactions serves to reduce the risk of nonpayment of the purchase price under the contract for the sale of goods. However, credits are also used in non-sale settings where they serve to reduce the risk of nonperformance. Generally, credits in the non-sale settings have come to be known as standby credits.31

There are three significant differences between commercial and standby credits. First, commercial credits involve the payment of money under a contract of sale. Such credits become payable upon the presentation by the seller-beneficiary of documents that show he has taken affirmative steps to comply with the sales agreement. In the standby type, the credit is payable upon certification of a party's nonperformance of the agreement. The documents that accompany the beneficiary's draft tend to show that the applicant has not performed. The beneficiary of a commercial credit must demonstrate by documents that he has performed his contract. The beneficiary of the standby credit must certify that his obligor has not performed the contract.32

By definition, a letter of credit is a written instrument whereby the writer requests or authorizes the addressee to pay money or deliver goods to a third person and assumes responsibility for payment of debt therefor to the addressee.33 A letter of credit, however, changes its nature as different transactions occur and if carried through to completion ends up as a binding contract between the issuing and honoring banks without any regard or relation to the underlying contract or disputes between the parties thereto.34

Since letters of credit have gained general acceptability in international trade transactions, the ICC has published from time to time updates on the Uniform Customs and Practice (UCP) for Documentary Credits to standardize practices in the letter of credit area. The vast majority of letters of credit incorporate the UCP.35 First published in 1933, the UCP for Documentary Credits has undergone several revisions, the latest of which was in 1993.36

In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc.,37 this Court ruled that the observance of the UCP is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce which provides that in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of Commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by usages and customs generally observed. More recently, in Bank of America, NT & SA v. Court of Appeals,38 this Court ruled that there being

no specific provisions which govern the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit, not only between or among banks themselves but also between banks and the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, the applicability of the UCP is undeniable.

Article 3 of the UCP provides that credits, by their nature, are separate transactions from the sales or other contract(s) on which they may be based and banks are in no way concerned with or bound by such contract(s), even if any reference whatsoever to such contract(s) is included in the credit. Consequently, the undertaking of a bank to pay, accept and pay draft(s) or negotiate and/or fulfill any other obligation under the credit is not subject to claims or defenses by the applicant resulting from his relationships with the issuing bank or the beneficiary. A beneficiary can in no case avail himself of the contractual relationships existing between the banks or between the applicant and the issuing bank.

Thus, the engagement of the issuing bank is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. The so-called "independence principle" assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. Under this principle, banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any documents, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated in the documents or superimposed thereon, nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the description, quantity, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods represented by any documents, or for the good faith or acts and/or omissions, solvency, performance or standing of the consignor, the carriers, or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever.39

The independent nature of the letter of credit may be: (a) independence in toto where the credit is independent from the justification aspect and is a separate obligation from the underlying agreement like for instance a typical standby; or (b) independence may be only as to the justification aspect like in a commercial letter of credit or repayment standby, which is identical with the same obligations under the underlying agreement. In both cases the payment may be enjoined if in the light of the purpose of the credit the payment of the credit would constitute fraudulent abuse of the credit.40

Can the beneficiary invoke the independence principle?

Petitioner insists that the independence principle does not apply to the instant case and assuming it is so, it is a defense available only to respondent banks. LHC, on the other hand, contends that it would be contrary to common sense to deny the benefit of an independent contract to the very party for whom the benefit is intended. As beneficiary of the letter of credit, LHC asserts it is entitled to invoke the principle.

As discussed above, in a letter of credit transaction, such as in this case, where the credit is stipulated as irrevocable, there is a definite undertaking by the issuing bank to pay the beneficiary provided that the stipulated documents are presented and the conditions of the credit are complied with.41 Precisely, the independence principle liberates the issuing bank from the duty of ascertaining compliance by the parties in the main contract. As the principle's nomenclature clearly suggests, the obligation under the letter of credit is independent of the related and originating contract. In brief, the letter of credit is separate and distinct from the underlying transaction.

Given the nature of letters of credit, petitioner's argument—that it is only the issuing bank that may invoke the independence principle on letters of credit—does not impress this Court. To say that the independence principle may only be invoked by the issuing banks would render nugatory the purpose for which the letters of credit are used in commercial transactions. As it is, the independence doctrine works to the benefit of both the issuing bank and the beneficiary.

Letters of credit are employed by the parties desiring to enter into commercial transactions, not for the benefit of the issuing bank but mainly for the benefit of the parties to the original transactions. With the letter of credit from the issuing bank, the party who applied for and obtained it may confidently present the letter of credit to the beneficiary as a security to convince the beneficiary to enter into the business transaction. On the other hand, the other party to the business transaction, i.e., the beneficiary of the letter of credit, can be rest assured of being empowered to call on the letter of credit as a security in case the commercial transaction does not push through, or the applicant fails to perform his part of the transaction. It is for this reason that the party who is entitled to the proceeds of the letter of credit is appropriately called "beneficiary."

Petitioner's argument that any dispute must first be resolved by the parties, whether through negotiations or arbitration, before the beneficiary is entitled to call on the letter of credit in essence would convert the letter of credit into a mere guarantee. Jurisprudence has laid down a clear distinction between a letter of credit and a guarantee in that the settlement of a dispute between the parties is not a pre-requisite for the release of funds under a letter of credit. In other words, the argument is incompatible with the very nature of the letter of credit. If a letter of credit is drawable only after settlement of the dispute on the contract entered into by the applicant and the beneficiary, there would be no practical and beneficial use for letters of credit in commercial transactions.

Professor John F. Dolan, the noted authority on letters of credit, sheds more light on the issue:

The standby credit is an attractive commercial device for many of the same reasons that commercial credits are attractive. Essentially, these credits are inexpensive and efficient. Often they replace surety contracts, which tend to generate higher costs than credits do and are usually triggered by a factual determination rather than by the examination of documents.

Because parties and courts should not confuse the different functions of the surety contract on the one hand and the standby credit on the other, the distinction between surety contracts and credits merits some reflection. The two commercial devices share a common purpose. Both ensure against the obligor's nonperformance. They function, however, in distinctly different ways.

Traditionally, upon the obligor's default, the surety undertakes to complete the obligor's performance, usually by hiring someone to complete that performance. Surety contracts, then, often involve costs of determining whether the obligor defaulted (a matter over which the surety and the beneficiary often litigate) plus the cost of performance. The benefit of the surety contract to the beneficiary is obvious. He knows that the surety, often an insurance company, is a strong financial institution that will perform if the obligor does not. The beneficiary also should understand that such performance must await the sometimes lengthy and costly determination that the obligor has defaulted. In addition, the surety's performance takes time.

The standby credit has different expectations. He reasonably expects that he will receive cash in the event of nonperformance, that he will receive it promptly, and that he will receive it before any litigation with the obligor (the applicant) over the nature of the applicant's performance takes place. The standby credit has this opposite effect of the surety contract: it reverses the financial burden of parties during litigation.

In the surety contract setting, there is no duty to indemnify the beneficiary until the beneficiary establishes the fact of the obligor's performance. The beneficiary may have to establish that fact in litigation. During the litigation, the surety holds the money and the beneficiary bears most of the cost of delay in performance.

In the standby credit case, however, the beneficiary avoids that litigation burden and receives his money promptly upon presentation of the required documents. It may be that the applicant has, in fact, performed and that the beneficiary's presentation of those documents is not rightful. In that case, the applicant may sue the beneficiary in tort, in contract, or in breach of warranty; but, during the litigation to determine whether the applicant has in fact breached the obligation to perform, the beneficiary, not the applicant, holds the money. Parties that use a standby credit and courts construing such a credit should understand this allocation of burdens. There is a tendency in some quarters to overlook this distinction between surety contracts and standby credits and to reallocate burdens by permitting the obligor or the issuer to litigate the performance question before payment to the beneficiary.42

While it is the bank which is bound to honor the credit, it is the beneficiary who has the right to ask the bank to honor the credit by allowing him to draw thereon. The situation itself emasculates petitioner's posture that LHC cannot invoke the independence principle and highlights its puerility, more so in this case where the banks concerned were impleaded as parties by petitioner itself.

Respondent banks had squarely raised the independence principle to justify their releases of the amounts due under the Securities. Owing to the nature and purpose of the standby letters of credit, this Court rules that the respondent banks were left with little or no alternative but to honor the credit and both of them in fact submitted that it was "ministerial" for them to honor the call for payment.43

Furthermore, LHC has a right rooted in the Contract to call on the Securities. The relevant provisions of the Contract read, thus:

4.2.1. In order to secure the performance of its obligations under this Contract, the Contractor at its cost shall on the Commencement Date provide security to the Employer in the form of two irrevocable and confirmed standby letters of credit (the "Securities"), each in the amount of US$8,988,907, issued and confirmed by banks or financial institutions acceptable to the Employer. Each of the Securities must be in form and substance acceptable to the Employer and may be provided on an annually renewable basis.44

8.7.1 If the Contractor fails to comply with Clause 8.2, the Contractor shall pay to the Employer by way of liquidated damages ("Liquidated Damages for Delay") the amount of US$75,000 for each and every day or part of a day that shall elapse between the Target Completion Date and the Completion Date, provided that Liquidated Damages for Delay payable by the Contractor shall in the aggregate not exceed 20% of the Contract Price. The Contractor shall pay Liquidated Damages for Delay for each day of the delay on the following day without need of demand from the Employer.

8.7.2 The Employer may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the amount of such damages from any monies due, or to become due to the Contractor and/or by drawing on the Security."45

A contract once perfected, binds the parties not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage, and law.46 A careful perusal of the Turnkey Contract reveals the intention of the parties to make the Securities answerable for the liquidated damages occasioned by any delay on the part of petitioner. The call upon the Securities, while not an exclusive remedy on the part of LHC, is certainly an alternative recourse available to it upon the happening of the contingency for which the Securities have been proffered. Thus, even without the use of the "independence principle," the Turnkey Contract itself bestows upon LHC the right to call on the Securities in the event of default.

Next, petitioner invokes the "fraud exception" principle. It avers that LHC's call on the Securities is wrongful because it fraudulently misrepresented to ANZ Bank and SBC that there is already a breach in the Turnkey Contract knowing fully well that this is yet to be determined by the arbitral tribunals. It asserts that the "fraud exception" exists when the beneficiary, for the purpose of drawing on the credit, fraudulently presents to the confirming bank, documents that contain, expressly or by implication, material representations of fact that to his knowledge are untrue. In such a situation, petitioner insists, injunction is recognized as a remedy available to it.

Citing Dolan's treatise on letters of credit, petitioner argues that the independence principle is not without limits and it is important to fashion those limits in light of the principle's purpose, which is to serve the commercial function of the credit. If it does not serve those functions, application of the principle is not warranted, and the commonlaw principles of contract should apply.

It is worthy of note that the propriety of LHC's call on the Securities is largely intertwined with the fact of default which is the self-same issue pending resolution before the arbitral tribunals. To be able to declare the call on the Securities wrongful or fraudulent, it is imperative to resolve, among others, whether petitioner was in fact guilty of delay in the performance of its obligation. Unfortunately for petitioner, this Court is not called upon to rule upon the issue of default—such issue having been submitted by the parties to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals pursuant to the terms embodied in their agreement.47

Would injunction then be the proper remedy to restrain the alleged wrongful draws on the Securities?

Most writers agree that fraud is an exception to the independence principle. Professor Dolan opines that the untruthfulness of a certificate accompanying a demand for payment under a standby credit may qualify as fraud sufficient to support an injunction against payment.48 The remedy for fraudulent abuse is an injunction. However, injunction should not be granted unless: (a) there is clear proof of fraud; (b) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse of the independent purpose of the letter of credit and not only fraud under the main agreement; and (c) irreparable injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously damaged.49

In its complaint for injunction before the trial court, petitioner alleged that it is entitled to a total extension of two hundred fifty-three (253) days which would move the target completion date. It argued that if its claims for extension would be found meritorious by the ICC, then LHC would not be entitled to any liquidated damages.50

Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest; it is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, the only limitation being that this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.51

Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right.52 It must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.53 Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation.54

In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that it has a clear and unmistakable right to restrain LHC's call on the Securities which would justify the issuance of preliminary injunction. By petitioner's own admission, the right of LHC to call on the Securities was contractually rooted and subject to the express stipulations in the

Turnkey Contract.55 Indeed, the Turnkey Contract is plain and unequivocal in that it conferred upon LHC the right to draw upon the Securities in case of default, as provided in Clause 4.2.5, in relation to Clause 8.7.2, thus:

4.2.5 The Employer shall give the Contractor seven days' notice of calling upon any of the Securities, stating the nature of the default for which the claim on any of the Securities is to be made, provided that no notice will be required if the Employer calls upon any of the Securities for the payment of Liquidated Damages for Delay or for failure by the Contractor to renew or extend the Securities within 14 days of their expiration in accordance with Clause 4.2.2.56

8.7.2 The Employer may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the amount of such damages from any monies due, or to become due, to the Contractor and/or by drawing on the Security.57

The pendency of the arbitration proceedings would not per se make LHC's draws on the Securities wrongful or fraudulent for there was nothing in the Contract which would indicate that the parties intended that all disputes regarding delay should first be settled through arbitration before LHC would be allowed to call upon the Securities. It is therefore premature and absurd to conclude that the draws on the Securities were outright fraudulent given the fact that the ICC and CIAC have not ruled with finality on the existence of default.

Nowhere in its complaint before the trial court or in its pleadings filed before the appellate court, did petitioner invoke the fraud exception rule as a ground to justify the issuance of an injunction.58 What petitioner did assert before the courts below was the fact that LHC's draws on the Securities would be premature and without basis in view of the pending disputes between them. Petitioner should not be allowed in this instance to bring into play the fraud exception rule to sustain its claim for the issuance of an injunctive relief. Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.59 The lower courts could thus not be faulted for not applying the fraud exception rule not only because the existence of fraud was fundamentally interwoven with the issue of default still pending before the arbitral tribunals, but more so, because petitioner never raised it as an issue in its pleadings filed in the courts below. At any rate, petitioner utterly failed to show that it had a clear and unmistakable right to prevent LHC's call upon the Securities.

Of course, prudence should have impelled LHC to await resolution of the pending issues before the arbitral tribunals prior to taking action to enforce the Securities. But, as earlier stated, the Turnkey Contract did not require LHC to do so and, therefore, it was merely enforcing its rights in accordance with the tenor thereof. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.60 More importantly, pursuant to the principle of autonomy of contracts embodied in Article 1306 of the Civil Code,61 petitioner could have incorporated in its Contract with LHC, a proviso that only the final determination by the arbitral tribunals that default had occurred would justify the enforcement of the Securities. However, the fact is petitioner did not do so; hence, it would have to live with its inaction.

With respect to the issue of whether the respondent banks were justified in releasing the amounts due under the Securities, this Court reiterates that pursuant to the independence principle the banks were under no obligation to determine the veracity of LHC's certification that default has occurred. Neither were they bound by petitioner's declaration that LHC's call thereon was wrongful. To repeat, respondent banks' undertaking was simply to pay once the required documents are presented by the beneficiary.

At any rate, should petitioner finally prove in the pending arbitration proceedings that LHC's draws upon the Securities were wrongful due to the non-existence of the fact of default, its right to seek indemnification for damages it suffered would not normally be foreclosed pursuant to general principles of law.

Moreover, in a Manifestation,62 dated 30 March 2001, LHC informed this Court that the subject letters of credit had been fully drawn. This fact alone would have been sufficient reason to dismiss the instant petition.

Settled is the rule that injunction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined have already become fait accompli or an accomplished or consummated act.63 In Ticzon v. Video Post Manila, Inc.64 this Court ruled that where the period within which the former employees were prohibited from engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with their former employer—the very purpose of the preliminary injunction —has expired, any declaration upholding the propriety of the writ would be entirely useless as there would be no actual case or controversy between the parties insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned.

In the instant case, the consummation of the act sought to be restrained had rendered the instant petition moot—for any declaration by this Court as to propriety or impropriety of the non-issuance of injunctive relief could have no practical effect on the existing controversy.65 The other issues raised by petitioner particularly with respect to its right to recover the amounts wrongfully drawn on the Securities, according to it, could properly be threshed out in a separate proceeding.

One final point. LHC has charged petitioner of forum-shopping. It raised the charge on two occasions. First, in its Counter-Manifestation dated 29 June 200466 LHC alleges that petitioner presented before this Court the same claim for money which it has filed in two other proceedings, to wit: ICC Case No. 11264/TE/MW and Civil Case No. 04-332 before the RTC of Makati. LHC argues that petitioner's acts constitutes forum-shopping which should be punished by the dismissal of the claim in both forums. Second, in its Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Addendum to Petitioner's Memorandum dated 8 October 2004, LHC alleges that by maintaining the present appeal and at the same time pursuing Civil Case No. 04-332—wherein petitioner pressed for judgment on the issue of whether the funds LHC drew on the Securities should be returned—petitioner resorted to forum-shopping. In both instances, however, petitioner has apparently opted not to respond to the charge.

Forum-shopping is a very serious charge. It exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.67 It may also consist in the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the other party.68 To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum-shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.69 Forum-shopping constitutes improper conduct and may be punished with summary dismissal of the multiple petitions and direct contempt of court.70

Considering the seriousness of the charge of forum-shopping and the severity of the sanctions for its violation, the Court will refrain from making any definitive ruling on this issue until after petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the charge.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, with costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 126490 March 31, 1998

ESTRELLA PALMARES, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and M.B. LENDING CORPORATION, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

Where a party signs a promissory note as a co-maker and binds herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor in case the latter defaults in the payment of the loan, is such undertaking of the former deemed to be that of a surety as an insurer of the debt, or of a guarantor who warrants the solvency of the debtor?

Pursuant to a promissory note dated March 13, 1990, private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation extended a loan to the spouses Osmeña and Merlyn Azarraga, together with petitioner Estrella Palmares, in the amount of P30,000.00 payable on or before May 12, 1990, with compounded interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be computed every 30 days from the date thereof. 1 On four occasions after the execution of the promissory note and even after the loan matured, petitioner and the Azarraga spouses were able to pay a total of P16,300.00, thereby leaving a balance of P13,700.00. No payments were made after the last payment on September 26, 1991. 2

Consequently, on the basis of petitioner's solidary liability under the promissory note, respondent corporation filed a complaint 3 against petitioner Palmares as the lone party-defendant, to the exclusion of the principal debtors, allegedly by reason of the insolvency of the latter.

In her Amended Answer with Counterclaim, 4 petitioner alleged that sometime in August 1990, immediately after the loan matured, she offered to settle the obligation with respondent corporation but the latter informed her that they would try to collect from the spouses Azarraga and that she need not worry about it; that there has already been a partial payment in the amount of P17,010.00; that the interest of 6% per month compounded at the same rate per month, as well as the penalty charges of 3% per month, are usurious and unconscionable; and that while she agrees to be liable on the note but only upon default of the principal debtor, respondent corporation acted in bad faith in suing her alone without including the Azarragas when they were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties submitted the following issues for the resolution of the trial court: (1) what the rate of interest, penalty and damages should be; (2) whether the liability of the defendant (herein petitioner) is primary or subsidiary; and (3) whether the defendant Estrella Palmares is only a guarantor with a subsidiary liability and not a co-maker with primary liability. 5

Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings filed and the memoranda to be submitted by them. On November 26, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the filing of a separate action for a sum of money against the spouses Osmeña and Merlyn Azarraga who are primarily liable on the instrument. 6 This was based on the findings of the court a quo that the filing of the complaint against herein petitioner Estrella Palmares, to the exclusion of the Azarraga spouses, amounted to a discharge of a prior party; that the offer made by petitioner to pay the obligation is considered a valid tender of payment sufficient to discharge a person's secondary liability on the instrument; as co-maker, is only secondarily liable on the instrument; and that the promissory note is a contract of adhesion.

Respondent Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court, and rendered judgment declaring herein petitioner Palmares liable to pay respondent corporation:

1. The sum of P13,700.00 representing the outstanding balance still due and owing with interest at six percent (6%) per month computed from the date the loan was contracted until fully paid;

2. The sum equivalent to the stipulated penalty of three percent (3%) per month, of the outstanding balance;

3. Attorney's fees at 25% of the total amount due per stipulations;

4. Plus costs of suit. 7

Contrary to the findings of the trial court, respondent appellate court declared that petitioner Palmares is a surety since she bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal debtors, the Azarraga spouses, when she signed as a co-maker. As such, petitioner is primarily liable on the note and hence may be sued by the creditor corporation for the entire obligation. It also adverted to the fact that petitioner admitted her liability in her Answer although she claims that the Azarraga spouses should have been impleaded. Respondent court ordered the imposition of the stipulated 6% interest and 3% penalty charges on the ground that the Usury Law is no longer enforceable pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 905. Finally, it rationalized that even if the promissory note were to be considered as a contract of adhesion, the same is not entirely prohibited because the one who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari wherein it is asserted that:

A. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Palmares acted as surety and is therefore solidarily liable to pay the promissory note.

1. The terms of the promissory note are vague. Its conflicting provisions do not establish Palmares' solidary liability.

2. The promissory note contains provisions which establish the co-maker's liability as that of a guarantor.

3. There is no sufficient basis for concluding that Palmares' liability is solidary.

4. The promissory note is a contract of adhesion and should be construed against M. B. Lending Corporation.

5. Palmares cannot be compelled to pay the loan at this point.

B. Assuming that Palmares' liability is solidary, the Court of Appeals erred in strictly imposing the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the promissory note.

The foregoing contentions of petitioner are denied and contradicted in their material points by respondent corporation. They are further refuted by accepted doctrines in the American jurisdiction after which we patterned our statutory law on surety and guaranty. This case then affords us the opportunity to make an extended

exposition on the ramifications of these two specialized contracts, for such guidance as may be taken therefrom in similar local controversies in the future.

The basis of petitioner Palmares' liability under the promissory note is expressed in this wise:

ATTENTION TO CO-MAKERS: PLEASE READ WELL

I, Mrs. Estrella Palmares, as the Co-maker of the above-quoted loan, have fully understood the contents of this Promissory Note for Short-Term Loan:

That as Co-maker, I am fully aware that I shall be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the above principal maker of this note;

That in fact, I hereby agree that M.B. LENDING CORPORATION may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note subject to the same conditions above-contained. 8

Petitioner contends that the provisions of the second and third paragraph are conflicting in that while the second paragraph seems to define her liability as that of a surety which is joint and solidary with the principal maker, on the other hand, under the third paragraph her liability is actually that of a mere guarantor because she bound herself to fulfill the obligation only in case the principal debtor should fail to do so, which is the essence of a contract of guaranty. More simply stated, although the second paragraph says that she is liable as a surety, the third paragraph defines the nature of her liability as that of a guarantor. According to petitioner, these are two conflicting provisions in the promissory note and the rule is that clauses in the contract should be interpreted in relation to one another and not by parts. In other words, the second paragraph should not be taken in isolation, but should be read in relation to the third paragraph.

In an attempt to reconcile the supposed conflict between the two provisions, petitioner avers that she could be held liable only as a guarantor for several reasons. First, the words "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" used in the second paragraph are technical and legal terms which are not fully appreciated by an ordinary layman like herein petitioner, a 65-year old housewife who is likely to enter into such transactions without fully realizing the nature and extent of her liability. On the contrary, the wordings used in the third paragraph are easier to comprehend. Second, the law looks upon the contract of suretyship with a jealous eye and the rule is that the obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond specified limits, taking into consideration the peculiar nature of a surety agreement which holds the surety liable despite the absence of any direct consideration received from either the principal obligor or the creditor. Third, the promissory note is a contract of adhesion since it was prepared by respondent M.B. Lending Corporation. The note was brought to petitioner partially filled up, the contents thereof were never explained to her, and her only participation was to sign thereon. Thus, any apparent ambiguity in the contract should be strictly construed against private respondent pursuant to Art. 1377 of the Civil Code. 9

Petitioner accordingly concludes that her liability should be deemed restricted by the clause in the third paragraph of the promissory note to be that of a guarantor.

Moreover, petitioner submits that she cannot as yet be compelled to pay the loan because the principal debtors cannot be considered in default in the absence of a judicial or extrajudicial demand. It is true that the complaint alleges the fact of demand, but the purported demand letters were never attached to the pleadings filed by private respondent before the trial court. And, while petitioner may have admitted in her Amended Answer that she received a demand letter from respondent corporation sometime in 1990, the same did not effectively put her or

the principal debtors in default for the simple reason that the latter subsequently made a partial payment on the loan in September, 1991, a fact which was never controverted by herein private respondent.

Finally, it is argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in awarding the amount of P2,745,483.39 in favor of private respondent when, in truth and in fact, the outstanding balance of the loan is only P13,700.00. Where the interest charged on the loan is exorbitant, iniquitous or unconscionable, and the obligation has been partially complied with, the court may equitably reduce the penalty 10 on grounds of substantial justice. More importantly, respondent corporation never refuted petitioner's allegation that immediately after the loan matured, she informed said respondent of her desire to settle the obligation. The court should, therefore, mitigate the damages to be paid since petitioner has shown a sincere desire for a compromise. 11

After a judicious evaluation of the arguments of the parties, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for lack of merit, but to except therefrom the issue anent the propriety of the monetary award adjudged to herein respondent corporation.

At the outset, let it here be stressed that even assuming arguendo that the promissory note executed between the parties is a contract of adhesion, it has been the consistent holding of the Court that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and that on numerous occasions the binding effects thereof have been upheld. The peculiar nature of such contracts necessitate a close scrutiny of the factual milieu to which the provisions are intended to apply. Hence, just as consistently and unhesitatingly, but without categorically invalidating such contracts, the Court has construed obscurities and ambiguities in the restrictive provisions of contracts of adhesion strictly albeit not unreasonably against the drafter thereof when justified in light of the operative facts and surrounding circumstances. 12 The factual scenario obtaining in the case before us warrants a liberal application of the rule in favor of respondent corporation.

The Civil Code pertinently provides:

Art. 2047. By guaranty, a person called the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so.

If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship.

It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.  13 In the case at bar, petitioner expressly bound herself to be jointly and severally or solidarily liable with the principal maker of the note. The terms of the contract are clear, explicit and unequivocal that petitioner's liability is that of a surety.

Her pretension that the terms "jointly and severally or solidarily liable" contained in the second paragraph of her contract are technical and legal terms which could not be easily understood by an ordinary layman like her is diametrically opposed to her manifestation in the contract that she "fully understood the contents" of the promissory note and that she is "fully aware" of her solidary liability with the principal maker. Petitioner admits that she voluntarily affixed her signature thereto; ergo, she cannot now be heard to claim otherwise. Any reference to the existence of fraud is unavailing. Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. Petitioner's attempt to prove fraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced only by her own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving allegations. 14

Having entered into the contract with full knowledge of its terms and conditions, petitioner is estopped to assert that she did so under a misapprehension or in ignorance of their legal effect, or as to the legal effect of the undertaking. 15 The rule that ignorance of the contents of an instrument does not ordinarily affect the liability of

one who signs it also applies to contracts of suretyship. And the mistake of a surety as to the legal effect of her obligation is ordinarily no reason for relieving her of liability. 16

Petitioner would like to make capital of the fact that although she obligated herself to be jointly and severally liable with the principal maker, her liability is deemed restricted by the provisions of the third paragraph of her contract wherein she agreed "that M.B. Lending Corporation may demand payment of the above loan from me in case the principal maker, Mrs. Merlyn Azarraga defaults in the payment of the note," which makes her contract one of guaranty and not suretyship. The purported discordance is more apparent than real.

A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the solvency of the debtor. 17 A suretyship is an undertaking that the debt shall be paid; a guaranty, an undertaking that the debtor shall pay. 18 Stated differently, a surety promises to pay the principal's debt if the principal will not pay, while a guarantor agrees that the creditor, after proceeding against the principal, may proceed against the guarantor if the principal is unable to pay. 19 A surety binds himself to perform if the principal does not, without regard to his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the other hand, does not contract that the principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so. 20 In other words, a surety undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at once if the principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor. 21

Quintessentially, the undertaking to pay upon default of the principal debtor does not automatically remove it from the ambit of a contract of suretyship. The second and third paragraphs of the aforequoted portion of the promissory note do not contain any other condition for the enforcement of respondent corporation's right against petitioner. It has not been shown, either in the contract or the pleadings, that respondent corporation agreed to proceed against herein petitioner only if and when the defaulting principal has become insolvent. A contract of suretyship, to repeat, is that wherein one lends his credit by joining in the principal debtor's obligation, so as to render himself directly and primarily responsible with him, and without reference to the solvency of the principal.22

In a desperate effort to exonerate herself from liability, petitioner erroneously invokes the rule on strictissimi juris, which holds that when the meaning of a contract of indemnity or guaranty has once been judicially determined under the rule of reasonable construction applicable to all written contracts, then the liability of the surety, under his contract, as thus interpreted and construed, is not to be extended beyond its strict meaning. 23 The rule, however, will apply only after it has been definitely ascertained that the contract is one of suretyship and not a contract of guaranty. It cannot be used as an aid in determining whether a party's undertaking is that of a surety or a guarantor.

Prescinding from these jurisprudential authorities, there can be no doubt that the stipulation contained in the third paragraph of the controverted suretyship contract merely elucidated on and made more specific the obligation of petitioner as generally defined in the second paragraph thereof. Resultantly, the theory advanced by petitioner, that she is merely a guarantor because her liability attaches only upon default of the principal debtor, must necessarily fail for being incongruent with the judicial pronouncements adverted to above.

It is a well-entrenched rule that in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall also be principally considered. 24 Several attendant factors in that genre lend support to our finding that petitioner is a surety. For one, when petitioner was informed about the failure of the principal debtor to pay the loan, she immediately offered to settle the account with respondent corporation. Obviously, in her mind, she knew that she was directly and primarily liable upon default of her principal. For another, and this is most revealing, petitioner presented the receipts of the payments already made, from the time of initial payment up to the last, which were all issued in her name and of the Azarraga spouses. 25 This can only be construed to mean that the payments made by the principal debtors were considered by respondent corporation as creditable directly upon the account and inuring to the benefit of petitioner. The concomitant and

simultaneous compliance of petitioner's obligation with that of her principals only goes to show that, from the very start, petitioner considered herself equally bound by the contract of the principal makers.

In this regard, we need only to reiterate the rule that a surety is bound equally and absolutely with the principal, 26and as such is deemed an original promisor and debtor from the beginning. 27 This is because in suretyship there is but one contract, and the surety is bound by the same agreement which binds the principal. 28 In essence, the contract of a surety starts with the agreement, 29 which is precisely the situation obtaining in this case before the Court.

It will further be observed that petitioner's undertaking as co-maker immediately follows the terms and conditions stipulated between respondent corporation, as creditor, and the principal obligors. A surety is usually bound with his principal by the same instrument, executed at the same time and upon the same consideration; he is an original debtor, and his liability is immediate and direct. 30 Thus, it has been held that where a written agreement on the same sheet of paper with and immediately following the principal contract between the buyer and seller is executed simultaneously therewith, providing that the signers of the agreement agreed to the terms of the principal contract, the signers were "sureties" jointly liable with the buyer. 31 A surety usually enters into the same obligation as that of his principal, and the signatures of both usually appear upon the same instrument, and the same consideration usually supports the obligation for both the principal and the surety. 32

There is no merit in petitioner's contention that the complaint was prematurely filed because the principal debtors cannot as yet be considered in default, there having been no judicial or extrajudicial demand made by respondent corporation. Petitioner has agreed that respondent corporation may demand payment of the loan from her in case the principal maker defaults, subject to the same conditions expressed in the promissory note. Significantly, paragraph (G) of the note states that "should I fail to pay in accordance with the above schedule of payment, I hereby waive my right to notice and demand." Hence, demand by the creditor is no longer necessary in order that delay may exist since the contract itself already expressly so declares. 33 As a surety, petitioner is equally bound by such waiver.

Even if it were otherwise, demand on the sureties is not necessary before bringing suit against them, since the commencement of the suit is a sufficient demand. 34 On this point, it may be worth mentioning that a surety is not even entitled, as a matter of right, to be given notice of the principal's default. Inasmuch as the creditor owes no duty of active diligence to take care of the interest of the surety, his mere failure to voluntarily give information to the surety of the default of the principal cannot have the effect of discharging the surety. The surety is bound to take notice of the principal's default and to perform the obligation. He cannot complain that the creditor has not notifiedhim in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.  35

The alleged failure of respondent corporation to prove the fact of demand on the principal debtors, by not attaching copies thereof to its pleadings, is likewise immaterial. In the absence of a statutory or contractual requirement, it is not necessary that payment or performance of his obligation be first demanded of the principal, especially where demand would have been useless; nor is it a requisite, before proceeding against the sureties, that the principal be called on to account. 36 The underlying principle therefor is that a suretyship is a direct contract to pay the debt of another. A surety is liable as much as his principal is liable, and absolutely liable as soon as default is made, without any demand upon the principal whatsoever or any notice of default. 37 As an original promisor and debtor from the beginning, he is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal.  38

Petitioner questions the propriety of the filing of a complaint solely against her to the exclusion of the principal debtors who allegedly were the only ones who benefited from the proceeds of the loan. What petitioner is trying to imply is that the creditor, herein respondent corporation, should have proceeded first against the principal before suing on her obligation as surety. We disagree.

A creditor's right to proceed against the surety exists independently of his right to proceed against the principal. 39Under Article 1216 of the Civil Code, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The rule, therefore, is that if the obligation is joint and several, the creditor has the right to proceed even against the surety alone. 40 Since, generally, it is not necessary for the creditor to proceed against a principal in order to hold the surety liable, where, by the terms of the contract, the obligation of the surety is the same that of the principal, then soon as the principal is in default, the surety is likewise in default, and may be sued immediately and before any proceedings are had against the principal. 41 Perforce, in accordance with the rule that, in the absence of statute or agreement otherwise, a surety is primarily liable, and with the rule that his proper remedy is to pay the debt and pursue the principal for reimbursement, the surety cannot at law, unless permitted by statute and in the absence of any agreement limiting the application of the security, require the creditor or obligee, before proceeding against the surety, to resort to and exhaust his remedies against the principal, particularly where both principal and surety are equally bound. 42

We agree with respondent corporation that its mere failure to immediately sue petitioner on her obligation does not release her from liability. Where a creditor refrains from proceeding against the principal, the surety is not exonerated. In other words, mere want of diligence or forbearance does not affect the creditor's rights vis-a-visthe surety, unless the surety requires him by appropriate notice to sue on the obligation. Such gratuitous indulgence of the principal does not discharge the surety whether given at the principal's request or without it, and whether it is yielded by the creditor through sympathy or from an inclination to favor the principal, or is only the result of passiveness. The neglect of the creditor to sue the principal at the time the debt falls due does not discharge the surety, even if such delay continues until the principal becomes insolvent. 43 And, in the absence of proof of resultant injury, a surety is not discharged by the creditor's mere statement that the creditor will not look to the surety, 44 or that he need not trouble himself. 45 The consequences of the delay, such as the subsequent insolvency of the principal, 46 or the fact that the remedies against the principal may be lost by lapse of time, are immaterial. 47

The raison d'être for the rule is that there is nothing to prevent the creditor from proceeding against the principal at any time. 48 At any rate, if the surety is dissatisfied with the degree of activity displayed by the creditor in the pursuit of his principal, he may pay the debt himself and become subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the creditor. 49

It may not be amiss to add that leniency shown to a debtor in default, by delay permitted by the creditor without change in the time when the debt might be demanded, does not constitute an extension of the time of payment, which would release the surety. 50 In order to constitute an extension discharging the surety, it should appear that the extension was for a definite period, pursuant to an enforceable agreement between the principal and the creditor, and that it was made without the consent of the surety or with a reservation of rights with respect to him. The contract must be one which precludes the creditor from, or at least hinders him in, enforcing the principal contract within the period during which he could otherwise have enforced it, and which precludes the surety from paying the debt. 51

None of these elements are present in the instant case. Verily, the mere fact that respondent corporation gave the principal debtors an extended period of time within which to comply with their obligation did not effectively absolve here in petitioner from the consequences of her undertaking. Besides, the burden is on the surety, herein petitioner, to show that she has been discharged by some act of the creditor, 52 herein respondent corporation, failing in which we cannot grant the relief prayed for.

As a final issue, petitioner claims that assuming that her liability is solidary, the interests and penalty charges on the outstanding balance of the loan cannot be imposed for being illegal and unconscionable. Petitioner additionally theorizes that respondent corporation intentionally delayed the collection of the loan in order that the interests and penalty charges would accumulate. The statement, likewise traversed by said respondent, is misleading.

In an affidavit 53 executed by petitioner, which was attached to her petition, she stated, among others, that:

8. During the latter part of 1990, I was surprised to learn that Merlyn Azarraga's loan has been released and that she has not paid the same upon its maturity. I received a telephone call from Mr. Augusto Banusing of MB Lending informing me of this fact and of my liability arising from the promissory note which I signed.

9. I requested Mr. Banusing to try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmeña Azarraga. At the same time, I offered to pay MB Lending the outstanding balance of the principal obligation should he fail to collect from Merlyn and Osmeña Azarraga. Mr. Banusing advised me not to worry because he will try to collect first from Merlyn and Osmeña Azarraga.

10. A year thereafter, I received a telephone call from the secretary of Mr. Banusing who reminded that the loan of Merlyn and Osmeña Azarraga, together with interest and penalties thereon, has not been paid. Since I had no available funds at that time, I offered to pay MB Lending by delivering to them a parcel of land which I own. Mr. Banusing's secretary, however, refused my offer for the reason that they are not interested in real estate.

11. In March 1992, I received a copy of the summons and of the complaint filed against me by MB Lending before the RTC-Iloilo. After learning that a complaint was filed against me, I instructed Sheila Gatia to go to MB Lending and reiterate my first offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation of Merlyn Azarraga in the amount of P30,000.00.

12. Ms. Gatia talked to the secretary of Mr. Banusing who referred her to Atty. Venus, counsel of MB Lending.

13. Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that he will consult Mr. Banusing if my offer to pay the outstanding balance of the principal obligation loan (sic) of Merlyn and Osmeña Azarraga is acceptable. Later, Atty. Venus informed Ms. Gatia that my offer is not acceptable to Mr. Banusing.

The purported offer to pay made by petitioner can not be deemed sufficient and substantial in order to effectively discharge her from liability. There are a number of circumstances which conjointly inveigh against her aforesaid theory.

1. Respondent corporation cannot be faulted for not immediately demanding payment from petitioner. It was petitioner who initially requested that the creditor try to collect from her principal first, and she offered to pay only in case the creditor fails to collect. The delay, if any, was occasioned by the fact that respondent corporation merely acquiesced to the request of petitioner. At any rate, there was here no actual offer of payment to speak of but only a commitment to pay if the principal does not pay.

2. Petitioner made a second attempt to settle the obligation by offering a parcel of land which she owned. Respondent corporation was acting well within its rights when it refused to accept the offer. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one, although the latter may be of the same value, or more valuable than that which is due. 54 The obligee is entitled to demand fulfillment of the obligation or performance as stipulated. A change of the object of the obligation would constitute novation requiring the express consent of the parties. 55

3. After the complaint was filed against her, petitioner reiterated her offer to pay the outstanding balance of the obligation in the amount of P30,000.00 but the same was likewise rejected. Again, respondent corporation

cannot be blamed for refusing the amount being offered because it fell way below the amount it had computed, based on the stipulated interests and penalty charges, as owing and due from herein petitioner. A debt shall not be understood to have been paid unless the thing or service in which the obligation consists has been completely delivered or rendered, as the case may be. 56 In other words, the prestation must be fulfilled completely. A person entering into a contract has a right to insist on its performance in all particulars. 57

Petitioner cannot compel respondent corporation to accept the amount she is willing to pay because the moment the latter accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, then the obligation shall be deemed fully complied with. 58 Precisely, this is what respondent corporation wanted to avoid when it continually refused to settle with petitioner at less than what was actually due under their contract.

This notwithstanding, however, we find and so hold that the penalty charge of 3% per month and attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due are highly inequitable and unreasonable.

It must be remembered that from the principal loan of P30,000.00, the amount of P16,300.00 had already been paid even before the filing of the present case. Article 1229 of the Civil Code provides that the court shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. And, even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced if it is iniquitous or leonine.

In a case previously decided by this Court which likewise involved private respondent M.B. Lending Corporation, and which is substantially on all fours with the one at bar, we decided to eliminate altogether the penalty interest for being excessive and unwarranted under the following rationalization:

Upon the matter of penalty interest, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the economic impact of the penalty interest of three percent (3 %) per month on total amount due but unpaid should be equitably reduced. The purpose for which the penalty interest is intended — that is, to punish the obligor — will have been sufficiently served by the effects of compounded interest. Under the exceptional circumstances in the case at bar, e.g., the original amount loaned was only P15,000.00; partial payment of P8,600.00 was made on due date; and the heavy (albeit still lawful) regular compensatory interest, the penalty interest stipulated in the parties' promissory note is iniquitous and unconscionable and may be equitably reduced further by eliminating such penalty interest altogether. 59

Accordingly, the penalty interest of 3% per month being imposed on petitioner should similarly be eliminated.

Finally, with respect to the award of attorney's fees, this Court has previously ruled that even with an agreement thereon between the parties, the court may nevertheless reduce such attorney's fees fixed in the contract when the amount thereof appears to be unconscionable or unreasonable. 60 To that end, it is not even necessary to show, as in other contracts, that it is contrary to morals or public policy. 61 The grant of attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due is, in our opinion, unreasonable and immoderate, considering the minimal unpaid amount involved and the extent of the work involved in this simple action for collection of a sum of money. We, therefore, hold that the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fee would be sufficient in this case. 62

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the penalty interest of 3% per month is hereby deleted and the award of attorney's fees is reduced to P10,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 138544. October 3, 2000]

SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Inc., petitioner, vs. RODOLFO M. CUENCA, respondent.D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:

Being an onerous undertaking, a surety agreement is strictly construed against the creditor, and every doubt is resolved in favor of the solidary debtor. The fundamental rules of fair play require the creditor to obtain the consent of the surety to any material alteration in the principal loan agreement, or at least to notify it thereof. Hence, petitioner bank cannot hold herein respondent liable for loans obtained in excess of the amount or beyond the period stipulated in the original agreement, absent any clear stipulation showing that the latter waived his right to be notified thereof, or to give consent thereto. This is especially true where, as in this case, respondent was no longer the principal officer or major stockholder of the corporate debtor at the time the later obligations were incurred. He was thus no longer in a position to compel the debtor to pay the creditor and had no more reason to bind himself anew to the subsequent obligations.

The Case

This is the main principle used in denying the present Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner assails the December 22, 1998 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 56203, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby amended in the sense that defendant-appellant Rodolfo M. Cuenca [herein respondent] is RELEASED from liability to pay any amount stated in the judgment.

“Furthermore, [Respondent] Rodolfo M. Cuenca’s counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

“In all other respect[s], the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.”[2]

Also challenged is the April 14, 1999 CA Resolution,[3] which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Modified by the CA was the March 6, 1997 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Branch 66) in Civil Case No. 93-1925, which disposed as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants Sta. Ines Melale Corporation and Rodolfo M. Cuenca to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff Security Bank & Trust Company the sum of P39,129,124.73 representing the balance of the loan as of May 10, 1994 plus 12% interest per annum until fully paid, and the sum of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”

The Facts

The facts are narrated by the Court of Appeals as follows:[5]

“The antecedent material and relevant facts are that defendant-appellant Sta. Ines Melale (‘Sta. Ines’) is a corporation engaged in logging operations. It was a holder of a Timber License Agreement issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (‘DENR’).

“On 10 November 1980, [Petitioner] Security Bank and Trust Co. granted appellant Sta. Ines Melale Corporation [SIMC] a credit line in the amount of [e]ight [m]llion [p]esos (P8,000,000.00) to assist the latter in meeting the additional capitalization requirements of its logging operations.

“The Credit Approval Memorandum expressly stated that the P8M Credit Loan Facility shall be effective until 30 November 1981:

‘JOINT CONDITIONS:

‘1. Against Chattel Mortgage on logging trucks and/or inventories (except logs) valued at 200% of the lines plus JSS of Rodolfo M. Cuenca.

‘2. Submission of an appropriate Board Resolution authorizing the borrowings, indicating therein the company’s duly authorized signatory/ies;

‘3. Reasonable/compensating deposit balances in current account shall be maintained at all times; in this connection, a Makati account shall be opened prior to availment on lines;

‘4. Lines shall expire on November 30, 1981; and

‘5. The bank reserves the right to amend any of the aforementioned terms and conditions upon written notice to the Borrower.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

“To secure the payment of the amounts drawn by appellant SIMC from the above-mentioned credit line, SIMC executed a Chattel Mortgage dated 23 December 1980 (Exhibit ‘A’) over some of its machinery and equipment in favor of [Petitioner] SBTC. As additional security for the payment of the loan, [Respondent] Rodolfo M. Cuenca executed an Indemnity Agreement dated 17 December 1980 (Exhibit ‘B’) in favor of [Petitioner] SBTC whereby he solidarily bound himself with SIMC as follows:

x x x x x x x x x

‘Rodolfo M. Cuenca x x x hereby binds himself x x x jointly and severally with the client (SIMC) in favor of the bank for the payment, upon demand and without the benefit of excussion of whatever amount x x x the client may be indebted to the bank x x x by virtue of aforesaid credit accommodation(s) including the substitutions, renewals, extensions, increases, amendments, conversions and revivals of the aforesaid credit accommodation(s) x x x .’ (Emphasis supplied).

“On 26 November 1981, four (4) days prior to the expiration of the period of effectivity of the P8M-Credit Loan Facility, appellant SIMC made a first drawdown from its credit line with [Petitioner] SBTC in the amount of [s]ix [m]illion [o]ne [h]undred [t]housand [p]esos (P6,100,000.00). To cover said drawdown, SIMC duly executed promissory Note No. TD/TLS-3599-81 for said amount (Exhibit ‘C’).

“Sometime in 1985, [Respondent] Cuenca resigned as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of defendant-appellant Sta. Ines. Subsequently, the shareholdings of [Respondent] Cuenca in defendant-appellant Sta. Ines were sold at a public auction relative to Civil Case No. 18021 entitled ‘Adolfo A. Angala vs. Universal Holdings, Inc. and Rodolfo M. Cuenca’. Said shares were bought by Adolfo Angala who was the highest bidder during the public auction.

“Subsequently, appellant SIMC repeatedly availed of its credit line and obtained six (6) other loan[s] from [Petitioner] SBTC in the aggregate amount of [s]ix [m]illion [t]hree [h]undred [s]ixty-[n]ine [t]housand [n]ineteen and 50/100 [p]esos (P6,369,019.50). Accordingly, SIMC executed Promissory Notes Nos. DLS/74/760/85, DLS/74773/85, DLS/74/78/85, DLS/74/760/85 DLS/74/12/86, and DLS/74/47/86 to cover the amounts of the abovementioned additional loans against the credit line.

“Appellant SIMC, however, encountered difficulty[6] in making the amortization payments on its loans and requested [Petitioner] SBTC for a complete restructuring of its indebtedness. SBTC accommodated appellant SIMC’s request and signified its approval in a letter dated 18 February 1988 (Exhibit ‘G’) wherein SBTC and defendant-appellant Sta. Ines, without notice to or the prior consent of [Respondent] Cuenca, agreed to

restructure the past due obligations of defendant-appellant Sta. Ines. [Petitioner] Security Bank agreed to extend to defendant-appellant Sta. Ines the following loans:

a. Term loan in the amount of [e]ight [m]illion [e]ight [h]undred [t]housand [p]esos (P8,800,000.00), to be applied to liquidate the principal portion of defendant-appellant Sta. Ines[‘] total outstanding indebtedness to [Petitioner] Security Bank (cf. P. 1 of Exhibit ‘G’, Expediente, at Vol. II, p. 336; Exhibit ‘5-B-Cuenca’, Expediente, et Vol I, pp. 33 to 34) and

b. Term loan in the amount of [t]hree [m]illion [f]our [h]undred [t]housand [p]esos (P3,400,000.00), to be applied to liquidate the past due interest and penalty portion of the indebtedness of defendant-appellant Sta. Ines to [Petitioner] Security Bank (cf. Exhibit ‘G’, Expediente, at Vol. II, p. 336; Exhibit ‘5-B-Cuenca’, Expediente, at Vol. II, p. 33 to 34).’

“It should be pointed out that in restructuring defendant-appellant Sta. Ines’ obligations to [Petitioner] Security Bank, Promissory Note No. TD-TLS-3599-81 in the amount of [s]ix [m]illion [o]ne [h]undred [t]housand [p]esos (P6,100,000.00), which was the only loan incurred prior to the expiration of the P8M-Credit Loan Facility on 30 November 1981 and the only one covered by the Indemnity Agreement dated 19 December 1980 (Exhibit ‘3-Cuenca’, Expediente, at Vol. II, p. 331), was not segregated from, but was instead lumped together with, the other loans, i.e., Promissory Notes Nos. DLS/74/12/86, DLS/74/28/86 and DLS/74/47/86 (Exhibits ‘D’, ‘E’, and ‘F’, Expediente, at Vol. II, pp. 333 to 335) obtained by defendant-appellant Sta. Ines which were not secured by said Indemnity Agreement.

“Pursuant to the agreement to restructure its past due obligations to [Petitioner] Security Bank, defendant-appellant Sta. Ines thus executed the following promissory notes, both dated 09 March 1988 in favor of [Petitioner] Security Bank:

PROMISSORY NOTE NO. AMOUNTRL/74/596/88 P8,800,000.00RL/74/597/88 P3,400,000.00-------------------TOTAL P12,200,000.00

(Exhibits ‘H’ and ‘I’, Expediente, at Vol. II, pp. 338 to 343).

“To formalize their agreement to restructure the loan obligations of defendant-appellant Sta. Ines, [Petitioner] Security Bank and defendant-appellant Sta. Ines executed a Loan Agreement dated 31 October 1989 (Exhibit ‘5-Cuenca’, Expediente, at Vol. I, pp. 33 to 41). Section 1.01 of the said Loan Agreement dated 31 October 1989 provides:

‘1.01 Amount - The Lender agrees to grant loan to the Borrower in the aggregate amount of TWELVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P12,200,000.00), Philippines [c]urrency (the ‘Loan’). The loan shall be released in two (2) tranches of P8,800,000.00 for the first tranche (the ‘First Loan’) and P3,400,000.00 for the second tranche (the ‘Second Loan’) to be applied in the manner and for the purpose stipulated hereinbelow.

‘1.02. Purpose - The First Loan shall be applied to liquidate the principal portion of the Borrower’s present total outstanding indebtedness to the Lender (the ‘indebtedness’) while the Second Loan shall be applied to liquidate the past due interest and penalty portion of the Indebtedness.’ (Underscoring supplied.) (cf. p. 1 of Exhibit ‘5-Cuenca’, Expediente, at Vol. I, p. 33)

“From 08 April 1988 to 02 December 1988, defendant-appellant Sta. Ines made further payments to [Petitioner] Security Bank in the amount of [o]ne [m]illion [s]even [h]undred [f]ifty-[s]even [t]housand [p]esos (P1,757,000.00) (Exhibits ‘8’, ‘9-P-SIMC’ up to ‘9-GG-SIMC’, Expediente, at Vol. II, pp. 38, 70 to 165)

“Appellant SIMC defaulted in the payment of its restructured loan obligations to [Petitioner] SBTC despite demands made upon appellant SIMC and CUENCA, the last of which were made through separate letters dated 5 June 1991 (Exhibit ‘K’) and 27 June 1991 (Exhibit ‘L’), respectively.

“Appellants individually and collectively refused to pay the [Petitioner] SBTC. Thus, SBTC filed a complaint for collection of sum of money on 14 June 1993, resulting after trial on the merits in a decision by the court a quo, x x x from which [Respondent] Cuenca appealed.”

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In releasing Respondent Cuenca from liability, the CA ruled that the 1989 Loan Agreement had novated the 1980 credit accommodation earlier granted by the bank to Sta. Ines. Accordingly, such novation extinguished the Indemnity Agreement, by which Cuenca, who was then the Board chairman and president of Sta. Ines, had bound himself solidarily liable for the payment of the loans secured by that credit accommodation. It noted that the 1989 Loan Agreement had been executed without notice to, much less consent from, Cuenca who at the time was no longer a stockholder of the corporation.

The appellate court also noted that the Credit Approval Memorandum had specified that the credit accommodation was for a total amount of P8 million, and that its expiry date was November 30, 1981. Hence, it ruled that Cuenca was liable only for loans obtained prior to November 30, 1981, and only for an amount not exceeding P8 million.

It further held that the restructuring of Sta. Ines’ obligation under the 1989 Loan Agreement was tantamount to a grant of an extension of time to the debtor without the consent of the surety. Under Article 2079 of the Civil Code, such extension extinguished the surety.

The CA also opined that the surety was entitled to notice, in case the bank and Sta. Ines decided to materially alter or modify the principal obligation after the expiry date of the credit accommodation.

Hence, this recourse to this Court.[7]

The Issues

In its Memorandum, petitioner submits the following for our consideration:[8]

“A. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in releasing Respondent Cuenca from liability as surety under the Indemnity Agreement for the payment of the principal amount of twelve million two hundred thousand pesos (P12,200,000.00) under Promissory Note No. RL/74/596/88 dated 9 March 1988 and Promissory Note No. RL/74/597/88 dated 9 March 1988, plus stipulated interests, penalties and other charges due thereon;

i. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Respondent Cuenca’s liability under the Indemnity Agreement covered only availments on SIMC’s credit line to the extent of eight million pesos (P8,000,000.00) and made on or before 30 November 1981;

ii. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the restructuring of SIMC’s indebtedness under the P8 million credit accommodation was tantamount to an extension granted to SIMC without Respondent Cuenca’s consent, thus extinguishing his liability under the Indemnity Agreement pursuant to Article 2079 of the Civil Code;

iii. Whether or not the Honorable Court of appeals erred in ruling that the restructuring of SIMC’s indebtedness under the P8 million credit accommodation constituted a novation of the principal obligation, thus extinguishing Respondent Cuenca’s liability under the indemnity agreement;

B. Whether or not Respondent Cuenca’s liability under the Indemnity Agreement was extinguished by the payments made by SIMC;

C. Whether or not petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was pro-forma;

D. Whether or not service of the Petition by registered mail sufficiently complied with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Distilling the foregoing, the Court will resolve the following issues: (a) whether the 1989 Loan Agreement novated the original credit accommodation and Cuenca’s liability under the Indemnity Agreement; and (b) whether Cuenca waived his right to be notified of and to give consent to any substitution, renewal, extension, increase, amendment, conversion or revival of the said credit accommodation. As preliminary matters, the procedural questions raised by respondent will also be addressed.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

Preliminary Matters: Procedural Questions

Motion for Reconsideration Not Pro Forma

Respondent contends that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision, in merely rehashing the arguments already passed upon by the appellate court, was pro forma; that as such, it did not toll the period for filing the present Petition for Review.[9] Consequently, the Petition was filed out of time.[10]

We disagree. A motion for reconsideration is not pro forma just because it reiterated the arguments earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate court. The Court has explained that a movant may raise the same arguments, precisely to convince the court that its ruling was erroneous.[11]

Moreover, there is no clear showing of intent on the part of petitioner to delay the proceedings. In Marikina Valley Development Corporation v. Flojo,[12] the Court explained that a pro forma motion had no other purpose than to gain time and to delay or impede the proceedings. Hence, “where the circumstances of a case do not show an intent on the part of the movant merely to delay the proceedings, our Court has refused to characterize the motion as simply pro forma.” It held:

“We note finally that because the doctrine relating to pro forma motions for reconsideration impacts upon the reality and substance of the statutory right of appeal, that doctrine should be applied reasonably, rather than literally. The right to appeal, where it exists, is an important and valuable right. Public policy would be better served by according the appellate court an effective opportunity to review the decision of the trial court on the merits, rather than by aborting the right to appeal by a literal application of the procedural rules relating to pro forma motions for reconsideration.”

Service by Registered Mail Sufficiently Explained

Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court, provides as follows:

“SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. -- Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.”

Respondent maintains that the present Petition for Review does not contain a sufficient written explanation why it was served by registered mail.

We do not think so. The Court held in Solar Entertainment v. Ricafort[13] that the aforecited rule was mandatory, and that “only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.”

In this case, the Petition does state that it was served on the respective counsels of Sta. Ines and Cuenca “by registered mail in lieu of personal service due to limitations in time and distance.”[14] This explanation sufficiently shows that personal service was not practicable. In any event, we find no adequate reason to reject the contention of petitioner and thereby deprive it of the opportunity to fully argue its cause.

First Issue: Original Obligation Extinguished by Novation

An obligation may be extinguished by novation, pursuant to Article 1292 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows:

“ART. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitute the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.”

Novation of a contract is never presumed. It has been held that “[i]n the absence of an express agreement, novation takes place only when the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.”[15] Indeed, the following requisites must be established: (1) there is a previous valid obligation; (2) the parties concerned agree to a new contract; (3) the old contract is extinguished; and (4) there is a valid new contract.[16]

Petitioner contends that there was no absolute incompatibility between the old and the new obligations, and that the latter did not extinguish the earlier one. It further argues that the 1989 Agreement did not change the original loan in respect to the parties involved or the obligations incurred. It adds that the terms of the 1989 Contract were “not more onerous.”[17] Since the original credit accomodation was not extinguished, it concludes that Cuenca is still liable under the Indemnity Agreement.

We reject these contentions. Clearly, the requisites of novation are present in this case. The 1989 Loan Agreement extinguished the obligation[18] obtained under the 1980 credit accomodation. This is evident from its explicit provision to “liquidate” the principal and the interest of the earlier indebtedness, as the following shows:

“1.02. Purpose. The First Loan shall be applied to liquidate the principal portion of the Borrower’s present total outstanding Indebtedness to the Lender (the “Indebtedness”) while the Second Loan shall be applied to liquidate the past due interest and penalty portion of the Indebtedness.”[19] (Italics supplied.)

The testimony of an officer[20] of the bank that the proceeds of the 1989 Loan Agreement were used “to pay-off” the original indebtedness serves to strengthen this ruling.[21]

Furthermore, several incompatibilities between the 1989 Agreement and the 1980 original obligation demonstrate that the two cannot coexist. While the 1980 credit accommodation had stipulated that the amount of loan was not to exceed P8 million,[22] the 1989 Agreement provided that the loan was P12.2 million. The periods for payment were also different.

Likewise, the later contract contained conditions, “positive covenants” and “negative covenants” not found in the earlier obligation. As an example of a positive covenant, Sta. Ines undertook “from time to time and upon request by the Lender, [to] perform such further acts and/or execute and deliver such additional documents and writings as may be necessary or proper to effectively carry out the provisions and purposes of this Loan Agreement.”[23] Likewise, SIMC agreed that it would not create any mortgage or encumbrance on any asset owned or hereafter acquired, nor would it participate in any merger or consolidation.[24]

Since the 1989 Loan Agreement had extinguished the original credit accommodation, the Indemnity Agreement, an accessory obligation, was necessarily extinguished also, pursuant to Article 1296 of the Civil Code, which provides:

“ART. 1296. When the principal obligation is extinguished in consequence of a novation, accessory obligations may subsist only insofar as they may benefit third persons who did not give their consent.”

Alleged Extension

Petitioner insists that the 1989 Loan Agreement was a mere renewal or extension of the P8 million original accommodation; it was not a novation.[25]

This argument must be rejected. To begin with, the 1989 Loan Agreement expressly stipulated that its purpose was to “liquidate,” not to renew or extend, the outstanding indebtedness. Moreover, respondent did not sign or consent to the 1989 Loan Agreement, which had allegedly extended the original P8 million credit facility. Hence, his obligation as a surety should be deemed extinguished, pursuant to Article 2079 of the Civil Code, which specifically states that “[a]n extension granted to the debtor by the creditor without the consent of the guarantor extinguishes the guaranty. x x x.” In an earlier case,[26] the Court explained the rationale of this provision in this wise:

“The theory behind Article 2079 is that an extension of time given to the principal debtor by the creditor without the surety’s consent would deprive the surety of his right to pay the creditor and to be immediately subrogated to the creditor’s remedies against the principal debtor upon the maturity date. The surety is said to be entitled to protect himself against the contingency of the principal debtor or the indemnitors becoming insolvent during the extended period.”

Binding Nature of the Credit Approval Memorandum

As noted earlier, the appellate court relied on the provisions of the Credit Approval Memorandum in holding that the credit accommodation was only for P8 million, and that it was for a period of one year ending on November 30, 1981. Petitioner objects to the appellate court’s reliance on that document, contending that it was not a binding agreement because it was not signed by the parties. It adds that it was merely for its internal use.

We disagree. It was petitioner itself which presented the said document to prove the accommodation. Attached to the Complaint as Annex A was a copy thereof “evidencing the accommodation.”[27] Moreover, in its Petition before this Court, it alluded to the Credit Approval Memorandum in this wise:

“4.1 On 10 November 1980, Sta. Ines Melale Corporation (“SIMC”) was granted by the Bank a credit line in the aggregate amount of Eight Million Pesos (P8,000,000.00) to assist SIMC in meeting the additional capitalization requirements for its logging operations. For this purpose, the Bank issued a Credit Approval Memorandum dated 10 November 1980.”

Clearly, respondent is estopped from denying the terms and conditions of the P8 million credit accommodation as contained in the very document it presented to the courts. Indeed, it cannot take advantage of that document by agreeing to be bound only by those portions that are favorable to it, while denying those that are disadvantageous.

Second Issue: Alleged Waiver of Consent

Pursuing another course, petitioner contends that Respondent Cuenca “impliedly gave his consent to any modification of the credit accommodation or otherwise waived his right to be notified of, or to give consent to, the same.”[28] Respondent’s consent or waiver thereof is allegedly found in the Indemnity Agreement, in which he held himself liable for the “credit accommodation including [its] substitutions, renewals, extensions,

increases, amendments, conversions and revival.” It explains that the novation of the original credit accommodation by the 1989 Loan Agreement is merely its “renewal,” which “connotes cessation of an old contract and birth of another one x x x.”[29]

At the outset, we should emphasize that an essential alteration in the terms of the Loan Agreement without the consent of the surety extinguishes the latter’s obligation. As the Court held in National Bank v. Veraguth,[30] “[i]t is fundamental in the law of suretyship that any agreement between the creditor and the principal debtor which essentially varies the terms of the principal contract, without the consent of the surety, will release the surety from liability.”

In this case, petitioner’s assertion - that respondent consented to the alterations in the credit accommodation -- finds no support in the text of the Indemnity Agreement, which is reproduced hereunder:

“Rodolfo M. Cuenca of legal age, with postal address c/o Sta. Ines Malale Forest Products Corp., Alco Bldg., 391 Buendia Avenue Ext., Makati Metro Manila for and in consideration of the credit accommodation in the total amount of eight million pesos (P8,000,000.00) granted by the SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a commercial bank duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippine, 6778 Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila hereinafter referred to as the BANK in favor of STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORP., x x x ---- hereinafter referred to as the CLIENT, with the stipulated interests and charges thereon, evidenced by that/those certain PROMISSORY NOTE[(S)], made, executed and delivered by the CLIENT in favor of the BANK hereby bind(s) himself/themselves jointly and severally with the CLIENT in favor of the BANK for the payment , upon demand and without benefit of excussion of whatever amount or amounts the CLIENT may be indebted to the BANK under and by virtue of aforesaid credit accommodation(s) including the substitutions, renewals, extensions, increases, amendment, conversions and revivals of the aforesaid credit accommodation(s), as well as of the amount or amounts of such other obligations that the CLIENT may owe the BANK, whether direct or indirect, principal or secondary, as appears in the accounts, books and records of the BANK, plus interest and expenses arising from any agreement or agreements that may have heretofore been made, or may hereafter be executed by and between the parties thereto, including the substitutions, renewals, extensions, increases, amendments, conversions and revivals of the aforesaid credit accommodation(s), and further bind(s) himself/themselves with the CLIENT in favor of the BANK for the faithful compliance of all the terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid credit accommodation(s), all of which are incorporated herein and made part hereof by reference.”

While respondent held himself liable for the credit accommodation or any modification thereof, such clause should be understood in the context of the P8 million limit and the November 30, 1981 term. It did not give the bank or Sta. Ines any license to modify the nature and scope of the original credit accommodation, without informing or getting the consent of respondent who was solidarily liable. Taking the bank’s submission to the extreme, respondent (or his successors) would be liable for loans even amounting to, say, P100 billion obtained 100 years after the expiration of the credit accommodation, on the ground that he consented to all alterations and extensions thereof.

Indeed, it has been held that a contract of surety “cannot extend to more than what is stipulated. It is strictly construed against the creditor, every doubt being resolved against enlarging the liability of the surety.”[31] Likewise, the Court has ruled that “it is a well-settled legal principle that if there is any doubt on the terms and conditions of the surety agreement, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the surety x x x. Ambiguous contracts are construed against the party who caused the ambiguity.”[32] In the absence of an unequivocal provision that respondent waived his right to be notified of or to give consent to any alteration of the credit accommodation, we cannot sustain petitioner’s view that there was such a waiver.

It should also be observed that the Credit Approval Memorandum clearly shows that the bank did not have absolute authority to unilaterally change the terms of the loan accommodation. Indeed, it may do so only upon notice to the borrower, pursuant to this condition:

“5. The Bank reserves the right to amend any of the aforementioned terms and conditions upon written notice to the Borrower.”[33]

We reject petitioner’s submission that only Sta. Ines as the borrower, not respondent, was entitled to be notified of any modification in the original loan accommodation.[34] Following the bank’s reasoning, such modification would not be valid as to Sta. Ines if no notice were given; but would still be valid as to respondent to whom no notice need be given. The latter’s liability would thus be more burdensome than that of the former. Such untenable theory is contrary to the principle that a surety cannot assume an obligation more onerous than that of the principal.[35]

The present controversy must be distinguished from Philamgen v. Mutuc,[36] in which the Court sustained a stipulation whereby the surety consented to be bound not only for the specified period, “but to any extension thereafter made, an extension x x x that could be had without his having to be notified.”

In that case, the surety agreement contained this unequivocal stipulation: “It is hereby further agreed that in case of any extension of renewal of the bond, we equally bind ourselves to the Company under the same terms and conditions as herein provided without the necessity of executing another indemnity agreement for the purpose and that we hereby equally waive our right to be notified of any renewal or extension of the bond which may be granted under this indemnity agreement.”

In the present case, there is no such express stipulation. At most, the alleged basis of respondent’s waiver is vague and uncertain. It confers no clear authorization on the bank or Sta. Ines to modify or extend the original obligation without the consent of the surety or notice thereto.

Continuing Surety

Contending that the Indemnity Agreement was in the nature of a continuing surety, petitioner maintains that there was no need for respondent to execute another surety contract to secure the 1989 Loan Agreement.

This argument is incorrect. That the Indemnity Agreement is a continuing surety does not authorize the bank to extend the scope of the principal obligation inordinately.[37] In Dino v. CA,[38] the Court held that “a continuing guaranty is one which covers all transactions, including those arising in the future, which are within the description or contemplation of the contract of guaranty, until the expiration or termination thereof.”

To repeat, in the present case, the Indemnity Agreement was subject to the two limitations of the credit accommodation: (1) that the obligation should not exceed P8 million, and (2) that the accommodation should expire not later than November 30, 1981. Hence, it was a continuing surety only in regard to loans obtained on or before the aforementioned expiry date and not exceeding the total of P8 million.

Accordingly, the surety of Cuenca secured only the first loan of P6.1 million obtained on November 26, 1991. It did not secure the subsequent loans, purportedly under the 1980 credit accommodation, that were obtained in 1986. Certainly, he could not have guaranteed the 1989 Loan Agreement, which was executed after November 30, 1981 and which exceeded the stipulated P8 million ceiling.

Petitioner, however, cites the Dino ruling in which the Court found the surety liable for the loan obtained after the payment of the original one, which was covered by a continuing surety agreement. At the risk of being repetitious, we hold that in Dino, the surety Agreement specifically provided that “each suretyship is a continuing one which shall remain in full force and effect until this bank is notified of its revocation.” Since the bank had not been notified of such revocation, the surety was held liable even for the subsequent obligations of the principal borrower.

No similar provision is found in the present case. On the contrary, respondent’s liability was confined to the 1980 credit accommodation, the amount and the expiry date of which were set down in the Credit Approval Memorandum.

Special Nature of the JSS

It is a common banking practice to require the JSS (“joint and solidary signature”) of a major stockholder or corporate officer, as an additional security for loans granted to corporations. There are at least two reasons for this. First, in case of default, the creditor’s recourse, which is normally limited to the corporate properties under the veil of separate corporate personality, would extend to the personal assets of the surety. Second, such surety would be compelled to ensure that the loan would be used for the purpose agreed upon, and that it would be paid by the corporation.

Following this practice, it was therefore logical and reasonable for the bank to have required the JSS of respondent, who was the chairman and president of Sta. Ines in 1980 when the credit accommodation was granted. There was no reason or logic, however, for the bank or Sta. Ines to assume that he would still agree to act as surety in the 1989 Loan Agreement, because at that time, he was no longer an officer or a stockholder of the debtor-corporation. Verily, he was not in a position then to ensure the payment of the obligation. Neither did he have any reason to bind himself further to a bigger and more onerous obligation.

Indeed, the stipulation in the 1989 Loan Agreement providing for the surety of respondent, without even informing him, smacks of negligence on the part of the bank and bad faith on that of the principal debtor. Since that Loan Agreement constituted a new indebtedness, the old loan having been already liquidated, the spirit of fair play should have impelled Sta. Ines to ask somebody else to act as a surety for the new loan.

In the same vein, a little prudence should have impelled the bank to insist on the JSS of one who was in a position to ensure the payment of the loan. Even a perfunctory attempt at credit investigation would have revealed that respondent was no longer connected with the corporation at the time. As it is, the bank is now relying on an unclear Indemnity Agreement in order to collect an obligation that could have been secured by a fairly obtained surety. For its defeat in this litigation, the bank has only itself to blame.

In sum, we hold that the 1989 Loan Agreement extinguished by novation the obligation under the 1980 P8 million credit accommodation. Hence, the Indemnity Agreement, which had been an accessory to the 1980 credit accommodation, was also extinguished. Furthermore, we reject petitioner’s submission that respondent waived his right to be notified of, or to give consent to, any modification or extension of the 1980 credit accommodation.

In this light, we find no more need to resolve the issue of whether the loan obtained before the expiry date of the credit accommodation has been paid.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 142381             October 15, 2003

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS, INC., and ALFREDO CHING, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 to annul the Decision2 dated 16 July 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39690, as well as its Resolution dated 17 February 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated 31 August 1992 rendered by Branch 113 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City ("trial court"). The trial court’s Decision declared petitioner Alfredo Ching ("Ching") liable to respondent Traders Royal Bank ("TRB") for the payment of the credit accommodations extended to Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. ("PBM").

Antecedent Facts

This case stems from an action to compel Ching to pay TRB the following amounts:

1. P959,611.96 under Letter of Credit No. 479 AD covered by Trust Receipt No. 106;4

2. P1,191,137.13 under Letter of Credit No. 563 AD covered by Trust Receipt No. 113;5 and

3. P3,500,000 under the trust loan covered by a notarized Promissory Note.6

Ching was the Senior Vice President of PBM. In his personal capacity and not as a corporate officer, Ching signed a Deed of Suretyship dated 21 July 1977 binding himself as follows:

xxx as primary obligor(s) and not as mere guarantor(s), hereby warrant to the TRADERS ROYAL BANK, its successors and assigns, the due and punctual payment by the following individuals and/or companies/firms, hereinafter called the DEBTOR(S), of such amounts whether due or not, as indicated opposite their respective names, to wit:

NAME OF DEBTOR(S) AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS CORP.

TEN MILLION PESOS

(P 10,000,000.00)

owing to said TRADERS ROYAL BANK, hereafter called the CREDITOR, as evidenced by all notes, drafts, overdrafts and other credit obligations of every kind and nature contracted/incurred by said DEBTOR(S) in favor of said CREDITOR.

In case of default by any and/or all of the DEBTOR(S) to pay the whole or part of said indebtedness herein secured at maturity, I/We, jointly and severally, agree and engage to the CREDITOR, its successors and assigns, the prompt payment, without demand or notice from said CREDITOR, of such notes, drafts, overdrafts and other credit obligations on which the DEBTOR(S) may now be indebted or may hereafter become indebted to the CREDITOR, together with all interests, penalty and other bank charges as may accrue thereon and all expenses which may be incurred by the latter in collecting any or all such instruments.

I/WE further warrant the due and faithful performance by the DEBTOR(S) of all the obligations to be performed under any contracts, evidencing indebtedness/obligations and any supplements, amendments, charges or modifications made thereto, including but not limited to, the due and punctual payment by the said DEBTOR(S).

I/WE hereby expressly waive notice of acceptance of this suretyship, and also presentment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor of any and all such instruments, loans, advances, credits, or other indebtedness or obligations hereinbefore referred to.

MY/OUR liability on this Deed of Suretyship shall be solidary, direct and immediate and not contingent upon the pursuit by the CREDITOR, its successors or assigns, of whatever remedies it or they may have against the DEBTOR(S) or the securities or liens it or they may possess; and I/WE hereby agree to be and remain bound upon this suretyship, irrespective of the existence, value or condition of any collateral, and notwithstanding also that all obligations of the DEBTOR(S) to you outstanding and unpaid at any time may exceed the aggregate principal sum herein above stated.

In the event of judicial proceedings, I/WE hereby expressly agree to pay the creditor for and as attorney’s fees a sum equivalent to TEN PER CENTUM (10%) of the total indebtedness (principal and interest) then unpaid, exclusive of all costs or expenses for collection allowed by law.7 (Emphasis supplied)

On 24 March and 6 August 1980, TRB granted PBM letters of credit on application of Ching in his capacity as Senior Vice President of PBM. Ching later accomplished and delivered to TRB trust receipts, which acknowledged receipt in trust for TRB of the merchandise subject of the letters of credit. Under the trust receipts, PBM had the right to sell the merchandise for cash with the obligation to turn over the entire proceeds of the sale to TRB as payment of PBM’s indebtedness. Letter of Credit No. 479 AD, covered by Trust Receipt No. 106, has a face value of US$591,043, while Letter of Credit No. 563 AD, covered by Trust Receipt No. 113, has a face value of US$155,460.34.

Ching further executed an Undertaking for each trust receipt, which uniformly provided that:

x x x

6. All obligations of the undersigned under the agreement of trusts shall bear interest at the rate of __ per centum ( __%) per annum from the date due until paid.

7. [I]n consideration of the Trust Receipt, the undersigned hereby jointly and severally undertake and agree to pay on demand on the said BANK, all sums and amounts of money which said BANK may call upon them to pay arising out of, pertaining to, and/or in any manner connected with this receipt. In case it is necessary to collect the draft covered by the Trust Receipt by or through an attorney-at-law, the undersigned hereby further agree(s) to pay an additional of 10% of the total amount due on

the draft as attorney’s fees, exclusive of all costs, fees and other expenses of collection but shall in no case be less than P200.00"8(Emphasis supplied)

On 27 April 1981, PBM obtained a P3,500,000 trust loan from TRB. Ching signed as co-maker in the notarized Promissory Note evidencing this trust loan. The Promissory Note reads:

FOR VALUE RECEIVED THIRTY (30) DAYS after date, I/We, jointly and severally, promise to pay the TRADERS ROYAL BANK or order, at its Office in 4th Floor, Kanlaon Towers Bldg., Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, the sum of Pesos: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ONLY (P3,500,000.00), Philippine Currency, with the interest rate of Eighteen Percent (18%) per annum until fully paid.

In case of non-payment of this note at maturity, I/We, jointly and severally, agree to pay an additional amount equivalent to two per cent (2%) of the principal sum per annum, as penalty and collection charges in the form of liquidated damages until fully paid, and the further sum of ten percent (10%) thereof in full, without any deduction, as and for attorney’s fees whether actually incurred or not, exclusive of costs and other judicial/extrajudicial expenses; moreover, I/We jointly and severally, further empower and authorize the TRADERS ROYAL BANK at its option, and without notice to set off or to apply to the payment of this note any and all funds, which may be in its hands on deposit or otherwise belonging to anyone or all of us, and to hold as security therefor any real or personal property which may be in its possession or control by virtue of any other contract.9 (Emphasis supplied)

PBM defaulted in its payment of Trust Receipt No. 106 (Letter of Credit No. 479 AD) for P959,611.96, and of Trust Receipt No. 113 (Letter of Credit No. 563 AD) for P1,191,137.13. PBM also defaulted on its P3,500,000 trust loan.

On 1 April 1982, PBM and Ching filed a petition for suspension of payments with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), docketed as SEC Case No. 2250.10 The petition sought to suspend payment of PBM’s obligations and prayed that the SEC allow PBM to continue its normal business operations free from the interference of its creditors. One of the listed creditors of PBM was TRB.11

On 9 July 1982, the SEC placed all of PBM’s assets, liabilities, and obligations under the rehabilitation receivership of Kalaw, Escaler and Associates.12

On 13 May 1983, ten months after the SEC placed PBM under rehabilitation receivership, TRB filed with the trial court a complaint for collection against PBM and Ching. TRB asked the trial court to order defendants to pay solidarily the following amounts:

(1) P6,612,132.74 exclusive of interests, penalties, and bank charges [representing its indebtedness arising from the letters of credit issued to its various suppliers];

(2) P4,831,361.11, exclusive of interests, penalties, and other bank charges [due and owing from the trust loan of 27 April 1981 evidenced by a promissory note];

(3) P783,300.00 exclusive of interests, penalties, and other bank charges [due and owing from the money market loan of 1 April 1981 evidenced by a promissory note];

(4) To order defendant Ching to pay P10,000,000.00 under the Deed of Suretyship in the event plaintiff can not recover the full amount of PBM’s indebtedness from the latter;

(5) The sum equivalent to 10% of the total sum due as and for attorney’s fees;

(6) Such other amounts that may be proven by the plaintiff during the trial, by way of damages and expenses for litigation.13

On 25 May 1983, TRB moved to withdraw the complaint against PBM on the ground that the SEC had already placed PBM under receivership.14 The trial court thus dismissed the complaint against PBM.15

On 23 June 1983, PBM and Ching also moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. PBM and Ching invoked the assumption of jurisdiction by the SEC over all of PBM’s assets and liabilities.16

TRB filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. TRB argued that (1) Ching is being sued in his personal capacity as a surety for PBM; (2) the SEC decision declaring PBM in suspension of payments is not binding on TRB; and (3) Presidential Decree No. 1758 ("PD No. 1758"),17 which Ching relied on to support his assertion that all claims against PBM are suspended, does not apply to Ching as the decree regulates corporate activities only.18

In its order dated 15 August 1983,19 the trial court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to Ching and affirmed its dismissal of the case with respect to PBM. The trial court stressed that TRB was holding Ching liable under the Deed of Suretyship. As Ching’s obligation was solidary, the trial court ruled that TRB could proceed against Ching as surety upon default of the principal debtor PBM. The trial court also held that PD No. 1758 applied only to corporations, partnerships and associations and not to individuals.

Upon the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Ching filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition20 before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted Ching’s petition and ordered the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruled that the SEC assumed jurisdiction over Ching and PBM to the exclusion of courts or tribunals of coordinate rank.

TRB assailed the Court of Appeals’ Decision21 before this Court. In Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals,22this Court upheld TRB and ruled that Ching was merely a nominal party in SEC Case No. 2250. Creditors may sue individual sureties of debtor corporations, like Ching, in a separate proceeding before regular courts despite the pendency of a case before the SEC involving the debtor corporation.

In his Answer dated 6 November 1989, Ching denied liability as surety and accommodation co-maker of PBM. He claimed that the SEC had already issued a decision23 approving a revised rehabilitation plan for PBM’s creditors, and that PBM obtained the credit accommodations for corporate purposes that did not redound to his personal benefit. He further claimed that even as a surety, he has the right to the defenses personal to PBM. Thus, his liability as surety would attach only if, after the implementation of payments scheduled under the rehabilitation plan, there would remain a balance of PBM’s debt to TRB.24 Although Ching admitted PBM’s availment of the credit accommodations, he did not show any proof of payment by PBM or by him.

TRB admitted certain partial payments on the PBM account made by PBM itself and by the SEC-appointed receiver.25 Thus, the trial court had to resolve the following remaining issues:

1. How much exactly is the corporate defendant’s outstanding obligation to the plaintiff?

2. Is defendant Alfredo Ching personally answerable, and for exactly how much?26

TRB presented Mr. Lauro Francisco, loan officer of the Remedial Management Department of TRB, and Ms. Carla Pecson, manager of the International Department of TRB, as witnesses. Both witnesses testified to the following:

1. The existence of a Deed of Suretyship dated 21 July 1977 executed by Ching for PBM’s liabilities to TRB up to P10,000,000;27

2. The application of PBM and grant by TRB on 13 March 1980 of Letter of Credit No. 479 AD for US$591,043, and the actual availment by PBM of the full proceeds of the credit accommodation;28

3. The application of PBM and grant by TRB on 6 August 1980 of Letter of Credit No. 563 AD for US$156,000, and the actual availment by PBM of the full proceeds of the credit accommodation;29 and

4. The existence of a trust loan of P3,500,000 evidenced by a notarized Promissory Note dated 27 April 1981 wherein Ching bound himself solidarily with PBM;30 and

5. Per TRB’s computation, Ching is liable for P19,333,558.16 as of 31 October 1991.31

Ching presented Atty. Vicente Aranda, corporate secretary and First Vice President of the Human Resources Department of TRB, as witness. Ching sought to establish that TRB’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution fixing the PBM account at an amount lower than what TRB wanted to collect from Ching. The trial court allowed Atty. Aranda to testify over TRB’s manifestation that the Answer failed to plead the subject matter of his testimony. Atty. Aranda produced TRB Board Resolution No. 5935, series of 1990, which contained the minutes of the special meeting of TRB’s Board of Directors held on 8 June 1990.32 In the resolution, the Board of Directors advised TRB’s Management "not to release Alfredo Ching from his JSS liability to the bank."33 The resolution also stated the following:

a) Accept the P1.373 million deposits remitted over a period of 17 years or until 2006 which shall be applied directly to the account (as remitted per hereto attached schedule). The amount of P1.373 million shall be considered as full payment of PBM’s account. (The receiver is amenable to this alternative)

The initial deposit/remittance which amounts to P150,000.00 shall be remitted upon approval of the above and conforme to PISCOR and PBM. Subsequent deposits shall start on the 3rd year and annually thereafter (every June 30th of the year) until June 30, 2006.

Failure to pay one annual installment shall make the whole obligation due and demandable.

b) Write-off immediately P4.278 million. The balance [of] P1.373 million to remain outstanding in the books of the Bank. Said balance will equal the deposits to be remitted to the Bank for a period of 17 years.34

However, Atty. Aranda himself testified that both items (a) and (b) quoted above were never complied with or implemented. Not only was there no initial deposit of P150,000 as required in the resolution, TRB also disapproved the document prepared by the receiver, which would have released Ching from his suretyship.35

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found Ching liable to TRB for P19,333,558.16 under the Deed of Suretyship. The trial court explained:

[T]he liability of Ching as a surety attaches independently from his capacity as a stockholder of the Philippine Blooming Mills. Indisputably, under the Deed of Suretyship defendant Ching unconditionally agreed to assume PBM’s liability to the plaintiff in the event PBM defaulted in the payment of the said obligation in addition to whatever penalties, expenses and bank charges that may occur by reason of default. Clear enough, under the Deed of Suretyship (Exh. J), defendant Ching bound himself jointly and severally with PBM in the payment of the latter’s obligation to the plaintiff. The obligation being solidary, the plaintiff Bank can hold Ching liable upon default of the principal debtor. This is explicitly provided in Article 1216 of the New Civil Code already quoted above.36

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendant Alfredo Ching liable to plaintiff bank in the amount of P19,333,558.16 (NINETEEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT & 16/100) as of October 31, 1991, and to pay the legal interest thereon from such date until it is fully paid. To pay plaintiff 5% of the entire amount by way of attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.37

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, Ching stated that as surety and solidary debtor, he should benefit from the changed nature of the obligation as provided in Article 1222 of the Civil Code, which reads:

Article 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.

Ching claimed that his liability should likewise be reduced since the equitable apportionment of PBM’s remaining assets among its creditors under the rehabilitation proceedings would have the effect of reducing PBM’s liability. He also claimed that the amount for which he was being held liable was excessive. He contended that the outstanding principal balance, as stated in TRB Board Resolution No. 5893-1990, was only P5,650,749.09.38Ching also contended that he was not liable for interest, as the loan documents did not stipulate the interest rate, pursuant to Article 1956 of the Civil Code.39 Finally, Ching asserted that the Deed of Suretyship executed on 21 July 1977 could not guarantee obligations incurred after its execution.40

TRB did not file its appellee’s brief. Thus, the Court of Appeals resolved to submit the case for decision.41

The Court of Appeals considered the following issues for its determination:

1. Whether the Answer of Ching amounted to an admission of liability.

2. Whether Ching can still be sued as a surety after the SEC placed PBM under rehabilitation receivership, and if in the affirmative, for how much.42

The Court of Appeals resolved the first two questions in favor of TRB. The appellate court stated:

Ching did not deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the L/Cs, Trust Receipts, Undertaking, Deed of Surety, and the 3.5 Million Peso Promissory Note upon which TRB’s action rested. He is, therefore, presumed to be liable unless he presents evidence showing payment, partially or in full, of these obligations (Investment and Underwriting Corporation of the Philippines v. Comptronics Philippines, Inc. and Gene v. Tamesis, 192 SCRA 725 [1990]).

As surety of a corporation placed under rehabilitation receivership, Ching can answer separately for the obligations of debtor PBM (Rizal Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc., and Alfredo Ching, 178 SCRA 738 [1990], and Traders Royal Bank v. Philippine Blooming Mills and Alfredo Ching, 177 SCRA 788 [1989]).

Even a[n] SEC injunctive order cannot suspend payment of the surety’s obligation since the rehabilitation receivers are limited to the existing assets of the corporation.43

The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED but modified with respect to the amount of liability of defendant Alfredo Ching which is lowered from P19,333,558.16 to P15,773,708.78 with legal interest of 12% per annum until it is fully paid.

SO ORDERED.44

The Court of Appeals denied Ching’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

Issues

Ching assigns the following as errors of the Court of Appeals:

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER ALFREDO CHING WAS LIABLE FOR OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BY PBM LONG AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF SURETYSHIP.

2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE TRUST RECEIPTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD PREVENTED THEIR FULFILLMENT.

3. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONER ALFREDO CHING LIABLE FOR P15,773,708.78 WITH LEGAL INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM UNTIL FULLY PAID DESPITE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE REHABILITATION PLAN OF PETITIONER PBM, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ONLY ENTITLED TO P1,373,415.00.45

Ching asserted that the Deed of Suretyship dated 21 July 1977 could not answer for obligations not yet in existence at the time of its execution. Specifically, Ching maintained that the Deed of Suretyship could not answer for debts contracted by PBM in 1980 and 1981. Ching contended that no accessory contract of suretyship could arise without an existing principal contract of loan. Ching likewise argued that TRB could no longer claim on the trust receipts because TRB had already taken the properties subject of the trust receipts. Ching likewise maintained that his obligation as surety could not exceed the P1,373,415 apportioned to PBM under the SEC-approved rehabilitation plan.

In its Comment, TRB asserted that the first two assigned errors raised factual issues not brought before the trial court. Furthermore, TRB pointed out that Ching never presented PBM’s rehabilitation plan before the trial court. TRB also stated that the Supreme Court ruling in Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals46 constitutes res judicata between the parties. Therefore, TRB could proceed against Ching separately from PBM to enforce in full Ching’s liability as surety.47

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

The case before us is an offshoot of the trial court’s denial of Ching’s motion to have the case dismissed against him. The petition is a thinly veiled attempt to make this Court reconsider its decision in the prior case of Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals.48 This Court has already resolved the issue of Ching’s separate liability as a surety despite the rehabilitation proceedings before the SEC. We held in Traders Royal Bank that:

Although Ching was impleaded in SEC Case No. 2250, as a co-petitioner of PBM, the SEC could not assume jurisdiction over his person and properties. The Securities and Exchange Commission was empowered, as rehabilitation receiver, to take custody and control of the assets and properties of PBM only, for the SEC has jurisdiction over corporations only [and] not over private individuals, except stockholders in an intra-corporate dispute (Sec. 5, P.D. 902-A and Sec. 2 of P.D. 1758). Being a nominal party in SEC Case No. 2250, Ching’s properties were not included in the rehabilitation receivership that the SEC constituted to take custody of PBM’s assets. Therefore, the petitioner bank was not barred from filing a suit against Ching, as a surety for PBM. An anomalous situation would arise if individual sureties for debtor corporations may escape liability by simply co-filing with the corporation a petition for suspension of payments in the SEC whose jurisdiction is limited only to corporations and their corporate assets.

x x x

Ching can be sued separately to enforce his liability as surety for PBM, as expressly provided by Article 1216 of the New Civil Code.

x x x

It is elementary that a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders and members. Being an officer or stockholder of a corporation does not make one’s property the property also of the corporation, for they are separate entities (Adelio Cruz vs. Quiterio Dalisay, 152 SCRA 482).

Ching’s act of joining as a co-petitioner with PBM in SEC Case No. 2250 did not vest in the SEC jurisdiction over his person or property, for jurisdiction does not depend on the consent or acts of the parties but upon express provision of law (Tolentino vs. Social Security System, 138 SCRA 428; Lee vs. Municipal Trial Court of Legaspi City, Br. I, 145 SCRA 408). (Emphasis supplied)

Traders Royal Bank has fully resolved the issue regarding Ching’s liability as a surety of the credit accommodations TRB extended to PBM. The decision amounts to res judicata49 which bars Ching from raising the same issue again. Hence, the only question that remains is the amount of Ching’s liability. Nevertheless, we shall resolve the issues Ching has raised in his attempt to escape liability under his surety.

Whether Ching is liable for obligations PBM contracted after execution of the Deed of Suretyship

Ching is liable for credit obligations contracted by PBM against TRB before and after the execution of the 21 July 1977 Deed of Suretyship. This is evident from the tenor of the deed itself, referring to amounts PBM "may now be indebted or may hereafter become indebted" to TRB.

The law expressly allows a suretyship for "future debts". Article 2053 of the Civil Code provides:

A guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the amount of which is not yet known; there can be no claim against the guarantor until the debt is liquidated. A conditional obligation may also be secured. (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, this Court has ruled in Diño v. Court of Appeals50 that:

Under the Civil Code, a guaranty may be given to secure even future debts, the amount of which may not be known at the time the guaranty is executed. This is the basis for contracts denominated as continuing guaranty or suretyship. A continuing guaranty is one which is not limited to a single transaction, but which contemplates a future course of dealing, covering a series of transactions, generally for an indefinite time or until revoked. It is prospective in its operation and is generally intended to provide security with respect to future transactions within certain limits, and contemplates a succession of liabilities, for which, as they accrue, the guarantor becomes liable. Otherwise stated, a continuing guaranty is one which covers all transactions, including those arising in the future, which are within the description or contemplation of the contract of guaranty, until the expiration or termination thereof. A guaranty shall be construed as continuing when by the terms thereof it is evident that the object is to give a standing credit to the principal debtor to be used from time to time either indefinitely or until a certain period; especially if the right to recall the guaranty is expressly reserved. Hence, where the contract states that the guaranty is to secure advances to be made "from time to time," it will be construed to be a continuing one.

In other jurisdictions, it has been held that the use of particular words and expressions such as payment of "any debt," "any indebtedness," or "any sum," or the guaranty of "any transaction," or money to be furnished the principal debtor "at any time," or "on such time" that the principal debtor may require, have been construed to indicate a continuing guaranty.

Whether Ching’s liability is limited to the amount stated in PBM’s rehabilitation plan

Ching would like this Court to rule that his liability is limited, at most, to the amount stated in PBM’s rehabilitation plan. In claiming this reduced liability, Ching invokes Article 1222 of the Civil Code which reads:

Art. 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.

In granting the loan to PBM, TRB required Ching’s surety precisely to insure full recovery of the loan in case PBM becomes insolvent or fails to pay in full. This was the very purpose of the surety. Thus, Ching cannot use PBM’s failure to pay in full as justification for his own reduced liability to TRB. As surety, Ching agreed to pay in full PBM’s loan in case PBM fails to pay in full for any reason, including its insolvency.

TRB, as creditor, has the right under the surety to proceed against Ching for the entire amount of PBM’s loan. This is clear from Article 1216 of the Civil Code:

ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected. (Emphasis supplied)

Ching further claims a reduced liability under TRB Board Resolution No. 5935. This resolution states that PBM’s outstanding loans may be reduced to P1.373 million subject to certain conditions like the payment of P150,000 initial payment.51 The resolution also states that TRB should not release Ching’s solidary liability under his surety. The resolution even directs TRB’s management to study Ching’s criminal liability under the trust documents.52

Ching’s own witness testified that Resolution No. 5935 was never implemented. For one, PBM or its receiver never paid the P150,000 initial payment to TRB. TRB also rejected the document that PBM’s receiver presented which would have released Ching from his suretyship. Clearly, Ching cannot rely on Resolution No. 5935 to escape liability under his suretyship.

Ching’s attempts to have this Court review the factual issues of the case are improper. It is not a function of the Supreme Court to assess and evaluate again the evidence, testimonial and evidentiary, adduced by the parties particularly where the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court coincide on the matter.53

Whether Ching is liable for the trust receipts

Ching is still liable for the amounts stated in the letters of credit covered by the trust receipts. Other than his bare allegations, Ching has not shown proof of payment or settlement with TRB. Atty. Vicente Aranda, TRB’s corporate secretary and First Vice President of its Human Resource Management Department, testified that the conditions in the TRB board resolution presented by Ching were not met or implemented, thus:

ATTY. AZURA

Q Going into the resolution itself. A certain stipulation ha[s] been outlined, and may I refer you to condition or step No. 1, which reads: "a) Accept the P1.373 million deposits remitted over a period of 17 years or until 2006 which shall be applied directly to the account (as remitted per hereto attached schedule). The amount of P1.373 million shall be considered as full payment of PBM’s account. (The receiver is amenable to this alternative.) The initial deposit/remittance which amounts to P150,000.00 shall be remitted upon approval of the above and conforme of PISCOR [xxx] and PBM. Subsequent deposits shall start on the 3rd year and annually thereafter (every June 30th of the year) until June 30, 2006.

Failure to pay one annual installment shall make the whole obligation due and demandable. Now Mr. Witness, would you be in a position to inform [the court] if these conditions listed in item (a) in Resolution No. 5935, series of 1990, were implemented or met?

A Yes. I know for a fact that the conditions, more particularly the initial deposit/remittance in the amount ofP150,000.00 which have to be done with approval was not remitted or met.

Q Will you clarify your answer. Would you be in a position to inform the court if those conditions were met? Because your initial answer was yes.

A Yes sir, I am in a position to state that these conditions were not met.

Q Let me refer you to the condition listed as item (b) of the same resolution which I read and quote: "Write off immediately P4.278 million. The balance of P1.373 million to remain outstanding in the books of the bank. Said balance will be remitted to the Bank for a period of 17 years." Mr. Witness, would you be in a position to inform the court if the bank implemented that particular condition?

A In the implementation of this settlement the receiver prepared a document for approval and conformity of the bank. The said document would in effect release the suretyship of Alfredo Ching and for that reason the bank refused or denied fixing its conformity and approval with the court.

xxx

ATTY. ATIENZA ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q Mr. Witness you stated that the reason why the plaintiff bank did not implement these conditionalities [sic] was because the former defendant corporation requested that the suretyship of Alfredo Ching be released, is that correct?

A I did not say that. I said that in effect the document prepared by the lawyer of the receiver xxx the bank would release the suretyship of Alfredo Ching, that is why the bank is not amenable to such a document.

Q Despite this approved resolution the bank, because of said requirement or conformity did not seek to implement these conditionalities [sic]?

A Yes sir because the conditions imposed by the board is not being followed in that document because it was the condition of the board that the suretyship should not be released but the document being presented to the bank for signature and conformity in effect if signed would release the suretyship. So it would be a violation with the approval of the board so the bank did not sign the conformity.54

Ching also claims that TRB prevented PBM from fulfilling its obligations under the trust receipts when TRB, together with other creditor banks, took hold of PBM’s inventories, including the goods covered by the trust receipts. Ching asserts that this act of TRB released him from liability under the suretyship. Ching forgets that he executed, on behalf of PBM, separate Undertakings for each trust receipt expressly granting to TRB the right to take possession of the goods at any time to protect TRB’s interests. TRB may exercise such right without waiving its right to collect the full amount of the loan to PBM. The Undertakings also provide that any suspension of payment or any assignment by PBM for the benefit of creditors renders the loan due and demandable. Thus, the separate Undertakings uniformly provide:

2. That the said BANK may at any time cancel the foregoing trust and take possession of said merchandise with the right to sell and dispose of the same under such terms and conditions it may deem best, or of the proceeds of such of the same as may then have been sold, wherever the said merchandise or proceeds may then be found and all the provisions of the Trust Receipt shall apply to and be deemed to include said above-mentioned merchandise if the same shall have been made up or used in the manufacture of any other goods, or merchandise, and the said BANK shall have the same rights and remedies against the said merchandise in its manufactured state, or the product of said manufacture as it would have had in the event that such merchandise had remained [in] its original state and irrespective of the fact that other and different merchandise is used in completing such manufacture. In the event of any suspension, or failure or assignment for the benefit of creditors on the part of the undersigned or of the non-fulfillment of any obligation, or of the non-payment at maturity of any acceptance made under said credit, or any other credit issued by the said BANK on account of the undersigned or of the non-payment of any indebtedness on the part of the undersigned to the said BANK, all obligations, acceptances, indebtedness and liabilities whatsoever shall thereupon without notice mature and become due and payable and the BANK may avail of the remedies provided herein.55 (Emphasis supplied)

Presidential Decree No. 115 ("PD No. 115"), otherwise known as the Trust Receipts Law, expressly allows TRB to take possession of the goods covered by the trust receipts. Thus, Section of 7 of PD No. 115 states:

SECTION 7. Rights of the entruster. — The entruster shall be entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the goods, documents or instruments released under a trust receipt to the entrustee to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt, or to the return of the goods, documents or instruments in case of non-sale, and to the enforcement of all other rights conferred on him in the trust receipt provided such are not contrary to the provisions of this Decree.

The entruster may cancel the trust and take possession of the goods, documents or instruments subject of the trust or of the proceeds realized therefrom at any time upon default or failure of the entrustee to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the trust receipt or any other agreement between the entruster and the entrustee, and the entruster in possession of the goods, documents or instruments may, on or after default, give notice to the entrustee of the intention to sell, and may, not less than five days after serving or sending of such notice, sell the goods, documents or instruments at public or private sale, and the entruster may, at a public sale, become a purchaser. The proceeds of any such sale, whether public or private, shall be applied (a) to the payment of the expenses thereof; (b) to the payment of the expenses of re-taking, keeping and storing the goods, documents or instruments; (c) to the satisfaction of the entrustee’s indebtedness to the entruster. The entrustee shall receive any surplus but shall be liable to the entruster for any deficiency. Notice of sale shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing, and either personally served on the entrustee or sent by post-paid ordinary mail to the entrustee’s last known business address. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, even though TRB took possession of the goods covered by the trust receipts, PBM and Ching remained liable for the entire amount of the loans covered by the trust receipts.

Absent proof of payment or settlement of PBM and Ching’s credit obligations with TRB, Ching’s liability is what the Deed of Suretyship stipulates, plus the applicable interest and penalties. The trust receipts, as well as the Letter of Undertaking dated 16 April 198056 executed by PBM, stipulate in writing the payment of interest without specifying the rate. In such a case, the applicable interest rate shall be the legal rate, which is now 12% per annum.57 This is in accordance with Central Bank Circular No. 416, which states:

By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act No. 2655, as amended, otherwise known as the "Usury Law," the Monetary Board, in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve per cent (12%) per annum. (Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, the Promissory Note evidencing the P3,500,000 trust loan provides for 18% interest per annum plus 2% penalty interest per annum in case of default. This stipulated interest should continue to run until full payment of the P3,500,000 trust loan. In addition, the accrued interest on all the credit accommodations should earn legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint pursuant to Article 2212 of the Civil Code.

Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point.

The trial court found and the appellate court affirmed that the outstanding principal amounts as of the filing of the complaint with the trial court on 13 May 1983 were P959,611.96 under Trust Receipt No. 106, P1,191,137.13 under Trust Receipt No. 113, and P3,500,000 for the trust loan. As extracted from TRB’s Statement of Account as of 31 October 1991,58 the accrued interest on the trust receipts and the trust loan as of the filing of the complaint on 13 May 1983 were P311,387.5159 under Trust Receipt No. 106, P338,739.8160 under Trust Receipt No. 113, and P1,287,616.4461 under the trust loan. The penalty interest on the trust loan amounted to P137,315.07.62Ching did not rebut this Statement of Account which TRB presented during trial.

Thus, the following is the summary of Ching’s liability under the suretyship as of 13 May 1983, the date of filing of TRB’s complaint with the trial court:

1. On Trust Receipt No. 106 (Letter of Credit No. 479 AD)

Outstanding Principal P 959,611.96

Accrued Interest (12% per annum) 311,387.51

2. On Trust Receipt No. 113 (Letter of Credit No. 563 AD)

Outstanding Principal P 1,191,137.13

Accrued Interest (12% per annum) 338,739.82

3. On the Trust Loan (Promissory Note)

Outstanding Principal P 3,500,000.00

Accrued Interest (18% per annum) 1,287,616.44

Accrued Penalty Interest (2% per annum) 137,315.07

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Alfredo Ching shall pay respondent Traders Royal Bank the following (1) on the credit accommodations under the trust receipts, the total principal amount of P2,150,749.09 with legal interest at 12% per annum from 14 May 1983 until full payment; (2) on the trust loan evidenced by the Promissory Note, the principal sum of P3,500,000 with 20% interest per annum from 14 May 1983 until full payment; (3) on the total accrued interest as of 13 May 1983,P2,075,058.84 with 12% interest per annum from 14 May 1983 until full payment. Petitioner Alfredo

Ching shall also pay attorney’s fees to respondent Traders Royal Bank equivalent to 5% of the total principal and interest.

SO ORDERED.

TUPAZ VS COURT OF APPEALS GR NO 145578

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review[1] of the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated 7 September 2000 and its Resolution dated 18 October 2000. The 7 September 2000 Decision affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 144 in a case for estafa under Section 13, Presidential Decree No. 115. The Court of Appeals’ Resolution of 18 October 2000 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The Facts

Petitioners Jose C. Tupaz IV and Petronila C. Tupaz (“petitioners”) were Vice-President for Operations and Vice-President/Treasurer, respectively, of El Oro Engraver Corporation (“El Oro Corporation”). El Oro Corporation had a contract with the Philippine Army to supply the latter with “survival bolos.”

To finance the purchase of the raw materials for the survival bolos, petitioners, on behalf of El Oro Corporation, applied with respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (“respondent bank”) for two commercial letters of credit. The letters of credit were in favor of El Oro Corporation’s suppliers, Tanchaoco Manufacturing Incorporated[3] (“Tanchaoco Incorporated”) and Maresco Rubber and Retreading Corporation[4] (“Maresco Corporation”). Respondent bank granted petitioners’ application and issued Letter of Credit No. 2-00896-3 for P564,871.05 to Tanchaoco Incorporated and Letter of Credit No. 2-00914-5 for P294,000 to Maresco Corporation.

Simultaneous with the issuance of the letters of credit, petitioners signed trust receipts in favor of respondent bank. On 30 September 1981, petitioner Jose C. Tupaz IV (“petitioner Jose Tupaz”) signed, in his personal capacity, a trust receipt corresponding to Letter of Credit No. 2-00896-3 (for P564,871.05). Petitioner Jose Tupaz bound himself to sell the goods covered by the letter of credit and to remit the proceeds to respondent bank, if sold, or to return the goods, if not sold, on or before 29 December 1981.

On 9 October 1981, petitioners signed, in their capacities as officers of El Oro Corporation, a trust receipt corresponding to Letter of Credit No. 2-00914-5 (for P294,000). Petitioners bound themselves to sell the goods covered by that letter of credit and to remit the proceeds to respondent bank, if sold, or to return the goods, if not sold, on or before 8 December 1981.

After Tanchaoco Incorporated and Maresco Corporation delivered the raw materials to El Oro Corporation, respondent bank paid the former P564,871.05 and P294,000, respectively.

Petitioners did not comply with their undertaking under the trust receipts. Respondent bank made several demands for payments but El Oro Corporation made partial payments only. On 27 June 1983 and 28 June 1983, respondent bank’s counsel[5] and its representative[6] respectively sent final demand letters to El Oro Corporation. El Oro Corporation replied that it could not fully pay its debt because the Armed Forces of the Philippines had delayed paying for the survival bolos.

Respondent bank charged petitioners with estafa under Section 13, Presidential Decree No. 115 (“Section 13”)[7] or Trust Receipts Law (“PD 115”). After preliminary investigation, the then Makati Fiscal’s Office found probable cause to indict petitioners. The Makati Fiscal’s Office filed the corresponding Informations (docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 8848 and 8849) with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, on 17 January 1984 and the cases were raffled to Branch 144 (“trial court”) on 20 January 1984. Petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges and trial ensued. During the trial, respondent bank presented evidence on the civil aspect of the cases.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 16 July 1992, the trial court rendered judgment acquitting petitioners of estafa on reasonable doubt. However, the trial court found petitioners solidarily liable with El Oro Corporation for the balance of El Oro Corporation’s principal debt under the trust receipts. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING both accused Jose C. Tupaz, IV and Petronila Tupaz based upon reasonable doubt.

However, El Oro Engraver Corporation, Jose C. Tupaz, IV and Petronila Tupaz, are hereby ordered, jointly and solidarily, to pay the Bank of the Philippine Islands the outstanding principal obligation of P624,129.19 (as of January 23, 1992) with the stipulated interest at the rate of 18% per annum; plus 10% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees; P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and costs of the suit.[8]

In holding petitioners civilly liable with El Oro Corporation, the trial court held:

[S]ince the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action, as in fact the prosecution thereof was actively handled by the private prosecutor, the Court believes that the El Oro Engraver Corporation and both accused Jose C. Tupaz and Petronila Tupaz, jointly and solidarily

should be held civilly liable to the Bank of the Philippine Islands. The mere fact that they were unable to collect in full from the AFP and/or the Department of National Defense the proceeds of the sale of the delivered survival bolos manufactured from the raw materials covered by the trust receipt agreements is no valid defense to the civil claim of the said complainant and surely could not wipe out their civil obligation. After all, they are free to institute an action to collect the same.[9]

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners contended that: (1) their acquittal “operates to extinguish [their] civil liability” and (2) at any rate, they are not personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s debts.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision of 7 September 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court held:

It is clear from [Section 13, PD 115] that civil liability arising from the violation of the trust receipt agreement is distinct from the criminal liability imposed therein. In the case of Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, our Supreme Court held that acquittal in the estafa case (P.D. 115) is no bar to the institution of a civil action for collection. This is because in such cases, the civil liability of the accused does not arise ex delicto but rather based ex contractu and as such is distinct and independent from any criminal proceedings and may proceed regardless of the result of the latter. Thus, an independent civil action to enforce the civil liability may be filed against the corporation aside from the criminal action against the responsible officers or employees.

xxx

[W]e hereby hold that the acquittal of the accused-appellants from the criminal charge of estafa did not operate to extinguish their civil liability under the letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement with plaintiff-appellee, with which they dealt both in their personal capacity and as officers of El Oro Engraver Corporation, the letter of credit applicant and principal debtor.

Appellants argued that they cannot be held solidarily liable with their corporation, El Oro Engraver Corporation, alleging that they executed the subject documents including the trust receipt agreements only in their capacity as such corporate officers. They said that these instruments are mere pro-forma and that they executed these instruments on the strength of a board resolution of said corporation authorizing them to apply for the opening of a letter of credit in favor of their suppliers as well as to execute the other documents necessary to accomplish the same.

Such contention, however, is contradicted by the evidence on record. The trust receipt agreement indicated in clear and unmistakable terms that the accused signed the same as surety for the corporation and that they bound themselves directly and immediately liable in the event of default with respect to the obligation under the letters of credit which were made part of the said agreement, without need of demand. Even in the application for the letter of credit, it is likewise clear that the undertaking of the accused is that of a surety as indicated [in] the following words: “In consideration of your establishing the commercial letter of credit herein applied for substantially in accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned Applicant and Surety hereby agree, jointly and severally, to each and all stipulations, provisions and conditions on the reverse side hereof.”

xxx

Having contractually agreed to hold themselves solidarily liable with El Oro Engraver Corporation under the subject trust receipt agreements with appellee Bank of the Philippine Islands, herein accused-appellants may not, therefore, invoke the separate legal personality of the said corporation to evade their civil liability under the letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement with said appellee, notwithstanding their acquittal in the criminal cases filed against them. The trial court thus did not err in holding the appellants solidarily liable with El Oro Engraver Corporation for the outstanding principal obligation of P624,129.19 (as of January 23, 1992) with the stipulated interest at the rate of 18% per annum, plus 10% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation and costs of suit.[10]

Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that:

1. A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OPERATE[S] TO EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF PETITIONERS[;]

2. GRANTING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTIONED OBLIGATION WAS INCURRED BY THE CORPORATION, THE SAME IS NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE;

3. GRANTING THAT THE QUESTIONED OBLIGATION WAS ALREADY DUE AND PAYABLE, xxx PETITIONERS ARE NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE TO xxx RESPONDENT BANK, SINCE THEY SIGNED THE LETTER[S] OF CREDIT AS ‘SURETY’ AS OFFICERS OF EL ORO, AND THEREFORE, AN EXCLUSIVE LIABILITY OF EL ORO; [AND]

4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE QUESTIONED TRANSACTIONS ARE SIMULATED AND VOID.[11]

The Issues

The petition raises these issues:

(1) Whether petitioners bound themselves personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s debts under the trust receipts;

(2) If so —

(a) whether petitioners’ liability is solidary with El Oro Corporation; and

(b) whether petitioners’ acquittal of estafa under Section 13, PD 115 extinguished their civil liability.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is partly meritorious. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling with the modification that petitioner Jose Tupaz is liable as guarantor of El Oro Corporation’s debt under the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981.

On Petitioners’ Undertaking Under

the Trust Receipts

A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers, and employees. Debts incurred by these individuals, acting as such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct liability of the corporation they represent.[12] As an exception, directors or officers are personally liable for the corporation’s debts only if they so contractually agree or stipulate.[13]

Here, the dorsal side of the trust receipts contains the following stipulation:

To the Bank of the Philippine Islands

In consideration of your releasing to ………………………………… under the terms of this Trust Receipt the goods described herein, I/We, jointly and severally, agree and promise to pay to you, on demand, whatever sum or sums of money which you may call upon me/us to pay to you, arising out of, pertaining to, and/or in any way connected with, this Trust Receipt, in the event of default and/or non-fulfillment in any respect of this undertaking on the part of the said ……………………………………. I/we further agree that my/our liability in this guarantee shall be DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE, without any need whatsoever on your part to take any steps or exhaust any legal remedies that you may have against the said …………………………………. before making demand upon me/us.[14] (Capitalization in the original)

In the trust receipt dated 9 October 1981, petitioners signed below this clause as officers of El Oro Corporation. Thus, under petitioner Petronila Tupaz’s signature are the words “Vice-Pres–Treasurer” and under petitioner Jose Tupaz’s signature are the words “Vice-Pres–Operations.” By so signing that trust receipt, petitioners did not bind themselves personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s obligation. In Ong v. Court of Appeals,[15] a corporate representative signed a solidary guarantee clause in two trust receipts in his capacity as corporate representative. There, the Court held that the corporate representative did not undertake to guarantee personally the payment of the corporation’s debts, thus:

[P]etitioner did not sign in his personal capacity the solidary guarantee clause found on the dorsal portion of the trust receipts. Petitioner placed his signature after the typewritten words “ARMCO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION” found at the end of the solidary guarantee clause. Evidently, petitioner did not undertake to guaranty personally the payment of the principal and interest of ARMAGRI’s debt under the two trust receipts.

Hence, for the trust receipt dated 9 October 1981, we sustain petitioners’ claim that they are not personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s obligation.

For the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981, the dorsal portion of which petitioner Jose Tupaz signed alone, we find that he did so in his personal capacity. Petitioner Jose Tupaz did not indicate that he was signing as El Oro Corporation’s Vice-President for Operations. Hence, petitioner Jose Tupaz bound himself personally liable for El Oro Corporation’s debts. Not being a party to the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981, petitioner Petronila Tupaz is not liable under such trust receipt.

The Nature of Petitioner Jose Tupaz’s Liability

Under the Trust Receipt Dated 30 September 1981

As stated, the dorsal side of the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981 provides:

To the Bank of the Philippine Islands

In consideration of your releasing to ………………………………… under the terms of this Trust Receipt the goods described herein, I/We, jointly and severally, agree and promise to pay to you, on demand, whatever sum or sums of money which you may call upon me/us to pay to you, arising out of, pertaining to, and/or in any way connected with, this Trust Receipt, in the event of default and/or non-fulfillment in any respect of this undertaking on the part of the said ……………………………………. I/we further agree that my/our liability in this guarantee shall be DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE, without any need whatsoever on your part to take any steps or exhaust any legal remedies that you may have against the said ……………………………………………. Before making demand upon me/us. (Underlining supplied; capitalization in the original)

The lower courts interpreted this to mean that petitioner Jose Tupaz bound himself solidarily liable with El Oro Corporation for the latter’s debt under that trust receipt.

This is error.

In Prudential Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[16] the Court interpreted a substantially identical clause[17] in a trust receipt signed by a corporate officer who bound himself personally liable for the corporation’s obligation. The petitioner in that case contended that the stipulation “we jointly and severally agree and undertake” rendered the corporate officer solidarily liable with the corporation. We dismissed this claim and held the corporate officer liable as guarantor only. The Court further ruled that had there been more than one signatories to the trust receipt, the solidary liability would exist between the guarantors. We held:

Petitioner [Prudential Bank] insists that by virtue of the clear wording of the xxx clause “x x x we jointly and severally agree and undertake x x x,” and the concluding sentence on exhaustion, [respondent] Chi’s liability therein is solidary.

xxx

Our xxx reading of the questioned solidary guaranty clause yields no other conclusion than that the obligation of Chi is only that of a guarantor. This is further bolstered by the last sentence which speaks of waiver of exhaustion, which, nevertheless, is ineffective in this case because the space therein for the party whose property may not be exhausted was not filled up. Under Article 2058 of the Civil Code, the defense of exhaustion (excussion) may be raised by a guarantor before he may be held liable for the obligation. Petitioner likewise admits that the questioned provision is a solidary guaranty clause, thereby clearly distinguishing it from a contract of surety. It, however, described the guaranty as solidary between the guarantors; this would have been correct if two (2) guarantors had signed it. The clause “we jointly and severally agree and undertake” refers to the undertaking of the two (2) parties who are to sign it or to the liability existing between themselves. It does not refer to the undertaking between either one or both of them on the one hand and the petitioner on the other with respect to the liability described under the trust receipt. xxx

Furthermore, any doubt as to the import or true intent of the solidary guaranty clause should be resolved against the petitioner. The trust receipt, together with the questioned solidary guaranty clause, is on a form drafted and

prepared solely by the petitioner; Chi’s participation therein is limited to the affixing of his signature thereon. It is, therefore, a contract of adhesion; as such, it must be strictly construed against the party responsible for its preparation.[18] (Underlining supplied; italicization in the original)

However, respondent bank’s suit against petitioner Jose Tupaz stands despite the Court’s finding that he is liable as guarantor only. First, excussion is not a pre-requisite to secure judgment against a guarantor. The guarantor can still demand deferment of the execution of the judgment against him until after the assets of the principal debtor shall have been exhausted.[19] Second, the benefit of excussion may be waived.[20] Under the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981, petitioner Jose Tupaz waived excussion when he agreed that his “liability in [the] guaranty shall be DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE, without any need whatsoever on xxx [the] part [of respondent bank] to take any steps or exhaust any legal remedies xxx.” The clear import of this stipulation is that petitioner Jose Tupaz waived the benefit of excussion under his guarantee.

As guarantor, petitioner Jose Tupaz is liable for El Oro Corporation’s principal debt and other accessory liabilities (as stipulated in the trust receipt and as provided by law) under the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981. That trust receipt (and the trust receipt dated 9 October 1981) provided for payment of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due and an “interest at the rate of 7% per annum, or at such other rate as the bank may fix, from the date due until paid xxx.”[21] In the applications for the letters of credit, the parties stipulated that drafts drawn under the letters of credit are subject to interest at the rate of 18% per annum.[22]

The lower courts correctly applied the 18% interest rate per annum considering that the face value of each of the trust receipts is based on the drafts drawn under the letters of credit. Based on the guidelines laid down in

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[23] the accrued stipulated interest earns 12% interest per annum from the time of the filing of the Informations in the Makati Regional Trial Court on 17 January 1984. Further, the total amount due as of the date of the finality of this Decision will earn interest at 18% per annum until fully paid since this was the stipulated rate in the applications for the letters of credit.[24]

The accounting of El Oro Corporation’s debts as of 23 January 1992, which the trial court used, is no longer useful as it does not specify the amounts owing under each of the trust receipts. Hence, in the execution of this Decision, the trial court shall compute El Oro Corporation’s total liability under each of the trust receipts dated 30 September 1981 and 9 October 1981 based on the following formula:[25]

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE = [principal + interest + interest on interest] – partial payments made[26]

Interest = principal x 18 % per annum x no. of years from due date[27] until finality of judgment

Interest on interest = interest computed as of the filing of the complaint (17 January 1984) x 12% x no. of years until finality of judgment

Attorney’s fees is 10% of the total amount computed as of finality of judgment

Total amount due as of the date of finality of judgment will earn an interest of 18% per annum until fully paid.

In so delegating this task, we reiterate what we said in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Alfa RTW Manufacturing Corporation[28] where we also ordered the trial court to compute the amount of obligation due based on a formula substantially similar to that indicated above:

The total amount due xxx [under] the xxx contract[] xxx may be easily determined by the trial court through a simple mathematical computation based on the formula specified above. Mathematics is an exact science, the application of which needs no further proof from the parties.

Petitioner Jose Tupaz’s Acquittal did not

Extinguish his Civil Liability

The rule is that where the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal —

[w]here the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt xxx as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases; where the court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature xxx as, for instance, in the felonies of estafa, theft, and malicious mischief committed by certain relatives who thereby incur only civil liability (See Art. 332, Revised Penal Code); and, where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted xxx.[29] (Emphasis supplied)

Here, respondent bank chose not to file a separate civil action[30] to recover payment under the trust receipts. Instead, respondent bank sought to recover payment in Criminal Case Nos. 8848 and 8849. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner Jose Tupaz, his acquittal did not extinguish his civil liability. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, his liability arose not from the criminal act of which he was acquitted (ex delito) but from the trust receipt contract (ex contractu) of 30 September 1981. Petitioner Jose Tupaz signed the trust receipt of 30 September 1981 in his personal capacity.

On the other Matters Petitioners Raise

Petitioners raise for the first time in this appeal the contention that El Oro Corporation’s debts under the trust receipts are not yet due and demandable. Alternatively, petitioners assail the trust receipts as simulated. These assertions have no merit. Under the terms of the trust receipts dated 30 September 1981 and 9 October 1981, El Oro Corporation’s debts fell due on 29 December 1981 and 8 December 1981, respectively.

Neither is there merit to petitioners’ claim that the trust receipts were simulated. During the trial, petitioners did not deny applying for the letters of credit and subsequently executing the trust receipts to secure payment of the drafts drawn under the letters of credit.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition in part. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 7 September 2000 and its Resolution dated 18 October 2000 with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1) El Oro Engraver Corporation is principally liable for the total amount due under the trust receipts dated 30 September 1981 and 9 October 1981, as computed by the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 144, upon finality of this Decision, based on the formula provided above;

2) Petitioner Jose C. Tupaz IV is liable for El Oro Engraver Corporation’s total debt under the trust receipt dated 30 September 1981 as thus computed by the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 144; and

3) Petitioners Jose C. Tupaz IV and Petronila C. Tupaz are not liable under the trust receipt dated 9 October 1981.

SO ORDERED.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION VS IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC

GR NO. 160324

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The terms of a contract govern the rights and obligations of the contracting parties. When the obligor undertakes to be “jointly and severally” liable, it means that the obligation is solidary.

If solidary liability was instituted to “guarantee” a principal obligation, the law deems the contract to be one of suretyship.

The creditor in the present Petition was able to show convincingly that, although denominated as a “Guarantee Agreement,” the Contract was actually a surety. Notwithstanding the use of the words “guarantee” and “guarantor,” the subject Contract was indeed a surety, because its terms were clear and left no doubt as to the intention of the parties.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 28, 2002 Decision[2] and September 30, 2003 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 58471. The challenged Decision disposed as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the trial court is MODIFIED to read as follows:

“1. Philippine Polyamide Industrial Corporation is ORDERED to pay [Petitioner] International Finance Corporation, the following amounts:

‘(a) US$2,833,967.00 with accrued interests as provided in the Loan Agreement;

‘(b) Interest of 12% per annum on accrued interest, which shall be counted from the date of filing of the instant action up to the actual payment;

‘(c) P73,340.00 as attorney’s fees;

‘(d) Costs of suit.’

“2. The guarantor Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. together with Grandtex is HELD secondarily liable to pay the amount herein adjudged to [Petitioner] International Finance Corporation.”[4]

The assailed Resolution denied both parties’ respective Motions for Reconsideration.

The Facts

The facts are narrated by the appellate court as follows:

“On December 17, 1974, [Petitioner] International Finance Corporation (IFC) and [Respondent] Philippine Polyamide Industrial Corporation (PPIC) entered into a loan agreement wherein IFC extended to PPIC a loan of US$7,000,000.00, payable in sixteen (16) semi-annual installments of US$437,500.00 each, beginning June 1, 1977 to December 1, 1984, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the principal amount of the loan

advanced and outstanding from time to time. The interest shall be paid in US dollars semi-annually on June 1 and December 1 in each year and interest for any period less than a year shall accrue and be pro-rated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.

“On December 17, 1974, a ‘Guarantee Agreement’ was executed with x x x Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. (ITM), Grand Textile Manufacturing Corporation (Grandtex) and IFC as parties thereto. ITM and Grandtex agreed to guarantee PPIC’s obligations under the loan agreement.

“PPIC paid the installments due on June 1, 1977, December 1, 1977 and June 1, 1978. The payments due on December 1, 1978, June 1, 1979 and December 1, 1979 were rescheduled as requested by PPIC. Despite the rescheduling of the installment payments, however, PPIC defaulted. Hence, on April 1, 1985, IFC served a written notice of default to PPIC demanding the latter to pay the outstanding principal loan and all its accrued interests. Despite such notice, PPIC failed to pay the loan and its interests.

“By virtue of PPIC’s failure to pay, IFC, together with DBP, applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages on the real estate, buildings, machinery, equipment plant and all improvements owned by PPIC, located at Calamba, Laguna, with the regional sheriff of Calamba, Laguna. On July 30, 1985, the deputy sheriff of Calamba, Laguna issued a notice of extrajudicial sale. IFC and DBP were the only bidders during the auction sale. IFC’s bid was for P99,269,100.00 which was equivalent to US$5,250,000.00 (at the prevailing exchange rate of P18.9084 = US$1.00). The outstanding loan, however, amounted to US$8,083,967.00 thus leaving a balance of US$2,833,967.00. PPIC failed to pay the remaining balance.

“Consequently, IFC demanded ITM and Grandtex, as guarantors of PPIC, to pay the outstanding balance. However, despite the demand made by IFC, the outstanding balance remained unpaid.

“Thereafter, on May 20, 1988, IFC filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila against PPIC and ITM for the payment of the outstanding balance plus interests and attorney’s fees.

“The trial court held PPIC liable for the payment of the outstanding loan plus interests. It also ordered PPIC to pay IFC its claimed attorney’s fees. However, the trial court relieved ITM of its obligation as guarantor. Hence, the trial court dismissed IFC’s complaint against ITM.

x x x x x x x x x

“Thus, apropos the decision dismissing the complaint against ITM, IFC appealed [to the CA].”[5]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA reversed the Decision of the trial court, insofar as the latter exonerated ITM from any obligation to IFC. According to the appellate court, ITM bound itself under the “Guarantee Agreement” to pay PPIC’s obligation upon default.[6] ITM was not discharged from its obligation as guarantor when PPIC mortgaged the latter’s properties to IFC.[7] The CA, however, held that ITM’s liability as a guarantor would arise only if and when PPIC could not pay. Since PPIC’s inability to comply with its obligation was not sufficiently established, ITM could not immediately be made to assume the liability.[8]

The September 30, 2003 Resolution of the CA denied reconsideration.[9] Hence, this Petition.[10]

The Issues

Petitioner states the issues in this wise:

“I. Whether or not ITM and Grandtex[11] are sureties and therefore, jointly and severally liable with PPIC, for the payment of the loan.

“II. Whether or not the Petition raises a question of law.

“III. Whether or not the Petition raises a theory not raised in the lower court.”[12]

The main issue is whether ITM is a surety, and thus solidarily liable with PPIC for the payment of the loan.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

Main Issue:

Liability of Respondent Under the Guarantee Agreement

The present controversy arose from the following Contracts: (1) the Loan Agreement dated December 17, 1974, between IFC and PPIC;[13] and (2) the Guarantee Agreement dated December 17, 1974, between ITM and Grandtex, on the one hand, and IFC on the other.[14]

IFC claims that, under the Guarantee Agreement, ITM bound itself as a surety to PPIC’s obligations proceeding from the Loan Agreement.[15] For its part, ITM asserts that, by the terms of the Guarantee Agreement, it was merely a guarantor[16] and not a surety. Moreover, any ambiguity in the Agreement should be construed against IFC -- the party that drafted it.[17]

Language of the Contract

The premise of the Guarantee Agreement is found in its preambular clause, which reads:

“Whereas,

“(A) By an Agreement of even date herewith between IFC and PHILIPPINE POLYAMIDE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (herein called the Company), which agreement is herein called the Loan Agreement, IFC agrees to extend to the Company a loan (herein called the Loan) of seven million dollars ($7,000,000) on the terms therein set forth, including a provision that all or part of the Loan may be disbursed in a currency other than dollars, but only on condition that the Guarantors agree to guarantee the obligations of the Company in respect of the Loan as hereinafter provided.

“(B) The Guarantors, in order to induce IFC to enter into the Loan Agreement, and in consideration of IFC entering into said Agreement, have agreed so to guarantee such obligations of the Company.”[18]

The obligations of the guarantors are meticulously expressed in the following provision:

“Section 2.01. The Guarantors jointly and severally, irrevocably, absolutely and unconditionally guarantee, as primary obligors and not as sureties merely, the due and punctual payment of the principal of, and interest and commitment charge on, the Loan, and the principal of, and interest on, the Notes, whether at stated maturity or upon prematuring, all as set forth in the Loan Agreement and in the Notes.”[19]

The Agreement uses “guarantee” and “guarantors,” prompting ITM to base its argument on those words.[20] This Court is not convinced that the use of the two words limits the Contract to a mere guaranty. The specific stipulations in the Contract show otherwise.

Solidary Liability

Agreed to by ITM

While referring to ITM as a guarantor, the Agreement specifically stated that the corporation was “jointly and severally” liable. To put emphasis on the nature of that liability, the Contract further stated that ITM was a primary obligor, not a mere surety. Those stipulations meant only one thing: that at bottom, and to all legal intents and purposes, it was a surety.

Indubitably therefore, ITM bound itself to be solidarily[21] liable with PPIC for the latter’s obligations under the Loan Agreement with IFC. ITM thereby brought itself to the level of PPIC and could not be deemed merely secondarily liable.

Initially, ITM was a stranger to the Loan Agreement between PPIC and IFC. ITM’s liability commenced only when it guaranteed PPIC’s obligation. It became a surety when it bound itself solidarily with the principal obligor. Thus, the applicable law is as follows:

“Article 2047. By guaranty, a person, called the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal in case the latter should fail to do so.

“If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract shall be called suretyship.”[22]

The aforementioned provisions refer to Articles 1207 to 1222 of the Civil Code on “Joint and Solidary Obligations.” Relevant to this case is Article 1216, which states:

“The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.”

Pursuant to this provision, petitioner (as creditor) was justified in taking action directly against respondent.

No Ambiguity in the Undertaking

The Court does not find any ambiguity in the provisions of the Guarantee Agreement. When qualified by the term “jointly and severally,” the use of the word “guarantor” to refer to a “surety” does not violate the law.[23] As Article 2047 provides, a suretyship is created when a guarantor binds itself solidarily with the principal obligor. Likewise, the phrase in the Agreement -- “as primary obligor and not merely as surety” -- stresses that ITM is being placed on the same level as PPIC. Those words emphasize the nature of their liability, which the law characterizes as a suretyship.

The use of the word “guarantee” does not ipso facto make the contract one of guaranty.[24] This Court has recognized that the word is frequently employed in business transactions to describe the intention to be bound by a primary or an independent obligation.[25] The very terms of a contract govern the obligations of the parties or the extent of the obligor’s liability. Thus, this Court has ruled in favor of suretyship, even though contracts were denominated as a “Guarantor’s Undertaking” [26] or a “Continuing Guaranty.”[27]

Contracts have the force of law between the parties,[28] who are free to stipulate any matter not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[29] None of these circumstances are present, much less alleged by respondent. Hence, this Court cannot give a different meaning to the plain language of the Guarantee Agreement.

Indeed, the finding of solidary liability is in line with the premise provided in the “Whereas” clause of the Guarantee Agreement. The execution of the Agreement was a condition precedent for the approval of PPIC’s loan from IFC. Consistent with the position of IFC as creditor was its requirement of a higher degree of liability from ITM in case PPIC committed a breach. ITM agreed with the stipulation in Section 2.01 and is now estopped from feigning ignorance of its solidary liability. The literal meaning of the stipulations control when the terms of the contract are clear and there is no doubt as to the intention of the parties.[30]

We note that the CA denied solidary liability, on the theory that the parties would not have executed a Guarantee Agreement if they had intended to name ITM as a primary obligor.[31] The appellate court opined that ITM’s undertaking was collateral to and distinct from the Loan Agreement. On this point, the Court stresses that a suretyship is merely an accessory or a collateral to a principal obligation.[32] Although a surety contract is secondary to the principal obligation, the liability of the surety is direct, primary and absolute; or equivalent to that of a regular party to the undertaking.[33] A surety becomes liable to the debt and duty of the principal obligor even without possessing a direct or personal interest in the obligations constituted by the latter.[34]

ITM’s Liability as Surety

With the present finding that ITM is a surety, it is clear that the CA erred in declaring the former secondarily liable.[35] A surety is considered in law to be on the same footing as the principal debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged against the latter.[36] Evidently, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision should be modified to require ITM to pay the amount adjudged in favor of IFC.

Peripheral Issues

In addition to the main issue, ITM raised procedural infirmities allegedly justifying the denial of the present Petition. Before the trial court and the CA, IFC had allegedly instituted different arguments that effectively changed the corporation’s theory on appeal, in violation of this Court’s previous pronouncements.[37] ITM further

claims that the main issue in the present case is a question of fact that is not cognizable by this Court.[38]

These contentions deserve little consideration.

Alleged Change of

Theory on Appeal

Petitioner’s arguments before the trial court (that ITM was a “primary obligor”) and before the CA (that ITM was a “surety”) were related and intertwined in the action to enforce the solidary liability of ITM under the Guarantee Agreement. We emphasize that the terms “primary obligor” and “surety” were premised on the same stipulations in Section 2.01 of the Agreement. Besides, both terms had the same legal consequences. There was therefore effectively no change of theory on appeal. At any rate, ITM failed to show to this Court a disparity between IFC’s allegations in the trial court and those in the CA. Bare allegations without proof deserve no credence.

Review of Factual Findings Necessary

As to the issue that only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review,[39] the Court has recognized exceptions,[40] one of which applies to the present case. The assailed Decision was based on a misapprehension of facts,[41] which particularly related to certain stipulations in the Guarantee Agreement -- stipulations that had not been disputed by the parties. This circumstance compelled the Court to review the Contract firsthand and to make its own findings and conclusions accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution MODIFIED in the sense that Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. is declared a surety to Philippine Polyamide Industrial Corporation. ITM is ORDERED to pay International Finance Corporation the same amounts adjudged against PPIC in the assailed Decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 151953              June 29, 2007

SALVADOR P. ESCAÑO and MARIO M. SILOS, petitioner, vs.RAFAEL ORTIGAS, JR., respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

The main contention raised in this petition is that petitioners are not under obligation to reimburse respondent, a claim that can be easily debunked. The more perplexing question is whether this obligation to repay is solidary, as contended by respondent and the lower courts, or merely joint as argued by petitioners.

On 28 April 1980, Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP)1 entered into a loan agreement with Falcon Minerals, Inc. (Falcon) whereby PDCP agreed to make available and lend to Falcon the amount of US$320,000.00, for specific purposes and subject to certain terms and conditions.2 On the same day, three stockholders-officers of Falcon, namely: respondent Rafael Ortigas, Jr. (Ortigas), George A. Scholey and George T. Scholey executed an Assumption of Solidary Liability whereby they agreed "to assume in [their] individual capacity, solidary liability with [Falcon] for the due and punctual payment" of the loan contracted by Falcon with PDCP.3 In the meantime, two separate guaranties were executed to guarantee the payment of the same loan by other stockholders and officers of Falcon, acting in their personal and individual capacities. One Guaranty4 was executed by petitioner Salvador Escaño (Escaño), while the other5 by petitioner Mario M. Silos (Silos), Ricardo C. Silverio (Silverio), Carlos L. Inductivo (Inductivo) and Joaquin J. Rodriguez (Rodriguez).

Two years later, an agreement developed to cede control of Falcon to Escaño, Silos and Joseph M. Matti (Matti). Thus, contracts were executed whereby Ortigas, George A. Scholey, Inductivo and the heirs of then already deceased George T. Scholey assigned their shares of stock in Falcon to Escaño, Silos and Matti.6 Part of the consideration that induced the sale of stock was a desire by Ortigas, et al., to relieve themselves of all liability arising from their previous joint and several undertakings with Falcon, including those related to the loan with PDCP. Thus, an Undertaking dated 11 June 1982 was executed by the concerned parties,7 namely: with Escaño, Silos and Matti identified in the document as "SURETIES," on one hand, and Ortigas, Inductivo and the Scholeys as "OBLIGORS," on the other. The Undertaking reads in part:

3. That whether or not SURETIES are able to immediately cause PDCP and PAIC to release OBLIGORS from their said guarantees [sic], SURETIES hereby irrevocably agree and undertake to assume all of OBLIGORs’ said guarantees [sic] to PDCP and PAIC under the following terms and conditions:

a. Upon receipt by any of [the] OBLIGORS of any demand from PDCP and/or PAIC for the payment of FALCON’s obligations with it, any of [the] OBLIGORS shall immediately inform SURETIES thereof so that the latter can timely take appropriate measures;

b. Should suit be impleaded by PDCP and/or PAIC against any and/or all of OBLIGORS for collection of said loans and/or credit facilities, SURETIES agree to defend OBLIGORS at their own expense, without prejudice to any and/or all of OBLIGORS impleading SURETIES therein for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief in respect to any of the claims of PDCP and/or PAIC; and

c. In the event that any of [the] OBLIGORS is for any reason made to pay any amount to PDCP and/or PAIC, SURETIES shall reimburse OBLIGORS for said amount/s within seven (7) calendar days from such payment;

4. OBLIGORS hereby waive in favor of SURETIES any and all fees which may be due from FALCON arising out of, or in connection with, their said guarantees[sic].8

Falcon eventually availed of the sum of US$178,655.59 from the credit line extended by PDCP. It would also execute a Deed of Chattel Mortgage over its personal properties to further secure the loan. However, Falcon subsequently defaulted in its payments. After PDCP foreclosed on the chattel mortgage, there remained a subsisting deficiency of P5,031,004.07, which Falcon did not satisfy despite demand.9

On 28 April 1989, in order to recover the indebtedness, PDCP filed a complaint for sum of money with the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC) against Falcon, Ortigas, Escaño, Silos, Silverio and Inductivo. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 89-5128. For his part, Ortigas filed together with his answer a cross-claim against his co-defendants Falcon, Escaño and Silos, and also manifested his intent to file a third-party complaint against the Scholeys and Matti.10 The cross-claim lodged against Escaño and Silos was predicated on the 1982 Undertaking, wherein they agreed to assume the liabilities of Ortigas with respect to the PDCP loan.

Escaño, Ortigas and Silos each sought to seek a settlement with PDCP. The first to come to terms with PDCP was Escaño, who in December of 1993, entered into a compromise agreement whereby he agreed to pay the bankP1,000,000.00. In exchange, PDCP waived or assigned in favor of Escaño one-third (1/3) of its entire claim in the complaint against all of the other defendants in the case.11 The compromise agreement was approved by the RTC in a Judgment12 dated 6 January 1994.

Then on 24 February 1994, Ortigas entered into his own compromise agreement13 with PDCP, allegedly without the knowledge of Escaño, Matti and Silos. Thereby, Ortigas agreed to pay PDCP P1,300,000.00 as "full satisfaction of the PDCP’s claim against Ortigas,"14 in exchange for PDCP’s release of Ortigas from any liability or claim arising from the Falcon loan agreement, and a renunciation of its claims against Ortigas.

In 1995, Silos and PDCP entered into a Partial Compromise Agreement whereby he agreed to pay P500,000.00 in exchange for PDCP’s waiver of its claims against him.15

In the meantime, after having settled with PDCP, Ortigas pursued his claims against Escaño, Silos and Matti, on the basis of the 1982 Undertaking. He initiated a third-party complaint against Matti and Silos,16 while he maintained his cross-claim against Escaño. In 1995, Ortigas filed a motion for Summary Judgment in his favor against Escaño, Silos and Matti. On 5 October 1995, the RTC issued the Summary Judgment, ordering Escaño, Silos and Matti to pay Ortigas, jointly and severally, the amount of P1,300,000.00, as well as P20,000.00 in attorney’s fees.17 The trial court ratiocinated that none of the third-party defendants disputed the 1982 Undertaking, and that "the mere denials of defendants with respect to non-compliance of Ortigas of the terms and conditions of the Undertaking, unaccompanied by any substantial fact which would be admissible in evidence at a hearing, are not sufficient to raise genuine issues of fact necessary to defeat a motion for summary judgment, even if such facts were raised in the pleadings."18 In an Order dated 7 March 1996, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment and awarded Ortigas legal interest of 12% per annum to be computed from 28 February 1994.19

From the Summary Judgment, recourse was had by way of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Escaño and Silos appealed jointly while Matti appealed by his lonesome. In a Decision20 dated 23 January 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Summary Judgment. The appellate court found that the RTC did not err in rendering the summary judgment since the three appellants did not effectively deny their execution of the 1982 Undertaking. The special defenses that were raised, "payment and excussion," were characterized by the Court of Appeals as "appear[ing] to be merely sham in the light of the pleadings and supporting documents and affidavits."21 Thus, it was concluded that there was no genuine issue that would still require the rigors of trial, and that the appealed judgment was decided on the bases of the undisputed and established facts of the case.

Hence, the present petition for review filed by Escaño and Silos.22 Two main issues are raised. First, petitioners dispute that they are liable to Ortigas on the basis of the 1982 Undertaking, a document which they do not disavow and have in fact annexed to their petition. Second, on the assumption that they are liable to Ortigas under the 1982 Undertaking, petitioners argue that they are jointly liable only, and not solidarily. Further assuming that they are liable, petitioners also submit that they are not liable for interest and if at all, the proper interest rate is 6% and not 12%.

Interestingly, petitioners do not challenge, whether in their petition or their memorandum before the Court, the appropriateness of the summary judgment as a relief favorable to Ortigas. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment may avail if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner have not attempted to demonstrate before us that there existed a genuine issue as to any material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Thus, we affirm with ease the common rulings of the lower courts that summary judgment is an appropriate recourse in this case.

The vital issue actually raised before us is whether petitioners were correctly held liable to Ortigas on the basis of the 1982 Undertaking in this Summary Judgment. An examination of the document reveals several clauses that make it clear that the agreement was brought forth by the desire of Ortigas, Inductivo and the Scholeys to be released from their liability under the loan agreement which release was, in turn, part of the consideration for the assignment of their shares in Falcon to petitioners and Matti. The whereas clauses manifest that Ortigas had bound himself with Falcon for the payment of the loan with PDCP, and that "amongst the consideration for OBLIGORS and/or their principals aforesaid selling is SURETIES’ relieving OBLIGORS of any and all liability arising from their said joint and several undertakings with FALCON."23 Most crucial is the clause in Paragraph 3 of the Undertaking wherein petitioners "irrevocably agree and undertake to assume all of OBLIGORs’ said guarantees [sic] to PDCP x x x under the following terms and conditions."24

At the same time, it is clear that the assumption by petitioners of Ortigas’s "guarantees" [sic] to PDCP is governed by stipulated terms and conditions as set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of Paragraph 3. First, upon receipt by "any of OBLIGORS" of any demand from PDCP for the payment of Falcon’s obligations with it, "any of OBLIGORS" was to immediately inform "SURETIES" thereof so that the latter can timely take appropriate measures. Second, should "any and/or all of OBLIGORS" be impleaded by PDCP in a suit for collection of its loan, "SURETIES agree[d] to defend OBLIGORS at their own expense, without prejudice to any and/or all of OBLIGORS impleading SURETIES therein for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief"25 in respect to any of the claims of PDCP. Third, if any of the "OBLIGORS is for any reason made to pay any amount to [PDCP], SURETIES [were to] reimburse OBLIGORS for said amount/s within seven (7) calendar days from such payment."26

Petitioners claim that, contrary to paragraph 3(c) of the Undertaking, Ortigas was not "made to pay" PDCP the amount now sought to be reimbursed, as Ortigas voluntarily paid PDCP the amount of P1.3 Million as an amicable settlement of the claims posed by the bank against him. However, the subject clause in paragraph 3(c) actually reads "[i]n the event that any of OBLIGORS is for any reason made to pay any amount to PDCP x x x"27 As pointed out by Ortigas, the phrase "for any reason" reasonably includes any extra-judicial settlement of obligation such as what Ortigas had undertaken to pay to PDCP, as it is indeed obvious that the phrase was incorporated in the clause to render the eventual payment adverted to therein unlimited and unqualified.

The interpretation posed by petitioners would have held water had the Undertaking made clear that the right of Ortigas to seek reimbursement accrued only after he had delivered payment to PDCP as a consequence of a final and executory judgment. On the contrary, the clear intent of the Undertaking was for petitioners and Matti to relieve the burden on Ortigas and his fellow "OBLIGORS" as soon as possible, and not only after Ortigas had been subjected to a final and executory adverse judgment.

Paragraph 1 of the Undertaking enjoins petitioners to "exert all efforts to cause PDCP x x x to within a reasonable time release all the OBLIGORS x x x from their guarantees [sic] to PDCP x x x"28 In the event that Ortigas and his fellow "OBLIGORS" could not be released from their guaranties, paragraph 2 commits petitioners and Matti to cause the Board of Directors of Falcon to make a call on its stockholders for the payment of their unpaid subscriptions and to pledge or assign such payments to Ortigas, et al., as security for whatever amounts the latter may be held liable under their guaranties. In addition, paragraph 1 also makes clear that nothing in the Undertaking "shall prevent OBLIGORS, or any one of them, from themselves negotiating with PDCP x x x for the release of their said guarantees [sic]."29

There is no argument to support petitioners’ position on the import of the phrase "made to pay" in the Undertaking, other than an unduly literalist reading that is clearly inconsistent with the thrust of the document. Under the Civil Code, the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.30 Likewise applicable is the provision that if some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as bearing

that import which is most adequate to render it effectual.31 As a means to effect the general intent of the document to relieve Ortigas from liability to PDCP, it is his interpretation, not that of petitioners, that holds sway with this Court.

Neither do petitioners impress us of the non-fulfillment of any of the other conditions set in paragraph 3, as they claim. Following the general assertion in the petition that Ortigas violated the terms of the Undertaking, petitioners add that Ortigas "paid PDCP BANK the amount of P1.3 million without petitioners ESCANO and SILOS’s knowledge and consent."32 Paragraph 3(a) of the Undertaking does impose a requirement that any of the "OBLIGORS" shall immediately inform "SURETIES" if they received any demand for payment of FALCON’s obligations to PDCP, but that requirement is reasoned "so that the [SURETIES] can timely take appropriate measures"33 presumably to settle the obligation without having to burden the "OBLIGORS." This notice requirement in paragraph 3(a) is markedly way off from the suggestion of petitioners that Ortigas, after already having been impleaded as a defendant in the collection suit, was obliged under the 1982 Undertaking to notify them before settling with PDCP.

The other arguments petitioners have offered to escape liability to Ortigas are similarly weak.

Petitioners impugn Ortigas for having settled with PDCP in the first place. They note that Ortigas had, in his answer, denied any liability to PDCP and had alleged that he signed the Assumption of Solidary Liability not in his personal capacity, but as an officer of Falcon. However, such position, according to petitioners, could not be justified since Ortigas later voluntarily paid PDCP the amount of P1.3 Million. Such circumstances, according to petitioners, amounted to estoppel on the part of Ortigas.

Even as we entertain this argument at depth, its premises are still erroneous. The Partial Compromise Agreement between PDCP and Ortigas expressly stipulated that Ortigas’s offer to pay PDCP was conditioned "without [Ortigas’s] admitting liability to plaintiff PDCP Bank’s complaint, and to terminate and dismiss the said case as against Ortigas solely."34 Petitioners profess it is "unthinkable" for Ortigas to have voluntarily paid PDCP without admitting his liability,35 yet such contention based on assumption cannot supersede the literal terms of the Partial Compromise Agreement.

Petitioners further observe that Ortigas made the payment to PDCP after he had already assigned his obligation to petitioners through the 1982 Undertaking. Yet the fact is PDCP did pursue a judicial claim against Ortigas notwithstanding the Undertaking he executed with petitioners. Not being a party to such Undertaking, PDCP was not precluded by a contract from pursuing its claim against Ortigas based on the original Assumption of Solidary Liability.

At the same time, the Undertaking did not preclude Ortigas from relieving his distress through a settlement with the creditor bank. Indeed, paragraph 1 of the Undertaking expressly states that "nothing herein shall prevent OBLIGORS, or any one of them, from themselves negotiating with PDCP x x x for the release of their said guarantees [sic]."36 Simply put, the Undertaking did not bar Ortigas from pursuing his own settlement with PDCP. Neither did the Undertaking bar Ortigas from recovering from petitioners whatever amount he may have paid PDCP through his own settlement. The stipulation that if Ortigas was "for any reason made to pay any amount to PDCP[,] x x x SURETIES shall reimburse OBLIGORS for said amount/s within seven (7) calendar days from such payment"37 makes it clear that petitioners remain liable to reimburse Ortigas for the sums he paid PDCP.

We now turn to the set of arguments posed by petitioners, in the alternative, that is, on the assumption that they are indeed liable.

Petitioners submit that they could only be held jointly, not solidarily, liable to Ortigas, claiming that the Undertaking did not provide for express solidarity. They cite Article 1207 of the New Civil Code, which states in part that "[t]here is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity."

Ortigas in turn argues that petitioners, as well as Matti, are jointly and severally liable for the Undertaking, as the language used in the agreement "clearly shows that it is a surety agreement"38 between the obligors (Ortigas group) and the sureties (Escaño group). Ortigas points out that the Undertaking uses the word "SURETIES" although the document, in describing the parties. It is further contended that the principal objective of the parties in executing the Undertaking cannot be attained unless petitioners are solidarily liable "because the total loan obligation can not be paid or settled to free or release the OBLIGORS if one or any of the SURETIES default from their obligation in the Undertaking."39

In case, there is a concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, Article 1207 of the Civil Code states that among them, "[t]here is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity." Article 1210 supplies further caution against the broad interpretation of solidarity by providing: "The indivisibility of an obligation does not necessarily give rise to solidarity. Nor does solidarity of itself imply indivisibility."

These Civil Code provisions establish that in case of concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, and in the absence of express and indubitable terms characterizing the obligation as solidary, the presumption is that the obligation is only joint. It thus becomes incumbent upon the party alleging that the obligation is indeed solidary in character to prove such fact with a preponderance of evidence.

The Undertaking does not contain any express stipulation that the petitioners agreed "to bind themselves jointly and severally" in their obligations to the Ortigas group, or any such terms to that effect. Hence, such obligation established in the Undertaking is presumed only to be joint. Ortigas, as the party alleging that the obligation is in fact solidary, bears the burden to overcome the presumption of jointness of obligations. We rule and so hold that he failed to discharge such burden.

Ortigas places primary reliance on the fact that the petitioners and Matti identified themselves in the Undertaking as "SURETIES", a term repeated no less than thirteen (13) times in the document. Ortigas claims that such manner of identification sufficiently establishes that the obligation of petitioners to him was joint and solidary in nature.

The term "surety" has a specific meaning under our Civil Code. Article 2047 provides the statutory definition of a surety agreement, thus:

Art. 2047. By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so.

If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship. [Emphasis supplied]40

As provided in Article 2047 in a surety agreement the surety undertakes to be bound solidarily with the principal debtor. Thus, a surety agreement is an ancillary contract as it presupposes the existence of a principal contract. It appears that Ortigas’s argument rests solely on the solidary nature of the obligation of the surety under Article 2047. In tandem with the nomenclature "SURETIES" accorded to petitioners and Matti in the Undertaking, however, this argument can only be viable if the obligations established in the

Undertaking do partake of the nature of a suretyship as defined under Article 2047 in the first place. That clearly is not the case here, notwithstanding the use of the nomenclature "SURETIES" in the Undertaking.

Again, as indicated by Article 2047, a suretyship requires a principal debtor to whom the surety is solidarily bound by way of an ancillary obligation of segregate identity from the obligation between the principal debtor and the creditor. The suretyship does bind the surety to the creditor, inasmuch as the latter is vested with the right to proceed against the former to collect the credit in lieu of proceeding against the principal debtor for the same obligation.41 At the same time, there is also a legal tie created between the surety and the principal debtor to which the creditor is not privy or party to. The moment the surety fully answers to the creditor for the obligation created by the principal debtor, such obligation is extinguished.42 At the same time, the surety may seek reimbursement from the principal debtor for the amount paid, for the surety does in fact "become subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the creditor."43

Note that Article 2047 itself specifically calls for the application of the provisions on joint and solidary obligations to suretyship contracts.44 Article 1217 of the Civil Code thus comes into play, recognizing the right of reimbursement from a co-debtor (the principal debtor, in case of suretyship) in favor of the one who paid (i.e., the surety).45However, a significant distinction still lies between a joint and several debtor, on one hand, and a surety on the other. Solidarity signifies that the creditor can compel any one of the joint and several debtors or the surety alone to answer for the entirety of the principal debt. The difference lies in the respective faculties of the joint and several debtor and the surety to seek reimbursement for the sums they paid out to the creditor.

Dr. Tolentino explains the differences between a solidary co-debtor and a surety:

A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor under the provisions of the second paragraph does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor and a fiador in solidum (surety). The latter, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than those bestowed upon him in Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code.

The second paragraph of [Article 2047] is practically equivalent to the contract of suretyship. The civil law suretyship is, accordingly, nearly synonymous with the common law guaranty; and the civil law relationship existing between the co-debtors liable in solidum is similar to the common law suretyship.46

In the case of joint and several debtors, Article 1217 makes plain that the solidary debtor who effected the payment to the creditor "may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made." Such solidary debtor will not be able to recover from the co-debtors the full amount already paid to the creditor, because the right to recovery extends only to the proportional share of the other co-debtors, and not as to the particular proportional share of the solidary debtor who already paid. In contrast, even as the surety is solidarily bound with the principal debtor to the creditor, the surety who does pay the creditor has the right to recover the full amount paid, and not just any proportional share, from the principal debtor or debtors. Such right to full reimbursement falls within the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to the surety by reason of the subsidiary obligation assumed by the surety.

What is the source of this right to full reimbursement by the surety? We find the right under Article 2066 of the Civil Code, which assures that "[t]he guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified by the latter," such indemnity comprising of, among others, "the total amount of the debt."47 Further, Article 2067 of the Civil Code likewise establishes that "[t]he guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor."48

Articles 2066 and 2067 explicitly pertain to guarantors, and one might argue that the provisions should not extend to sureties, especially in light of the qualifier in Article 2047 that the provisions on joint and several obligations should apply to sureties. We reject that argument, and instead adopt Dr. Tolentino’s observation that "[t]he reference in the second paragraph of [Article 2047] to the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV, on solidary or several obligations, however, does not mean that suretyship is withdrawn from the applicable provisions governing guaranty."49 For if that were not the implication, there would be no material difference between the surety as defined under Article 2047 and the joint and several debtors, for both classes of obligors would be governed by exactly the same rules and limitations.

Accordingly, the rights to indemnification and subrogation as established and granted to the guarantor by Articles 2066 and 2067 extend as well to sureties as defined under Article 2047. These rights granted to the surety who pays materially differ from those granted under Article 1217 to the solidary debtor who pays, since the "indemnification" that pertains to the latter extends "only [to] the share which corresponds to each [co-debtor]." It is for this reason that the Court cannot accord the conclusion that because petitioners are identified in the Undertaking as "SURETIES," they are consequently joint and severally liable to Ortigas.

In order for the conclusion espoused by Ortigas to hold, in light of the general presumption favoring joint liability, the Court would have to be satisfied that among the petitioners and Matti, there is one or some of them who stand as the principal debtor to Ortigas and another as surety who has the right to full reimbursement from the principal debtor or debtors. No suggestion is made by the parties that such is the case, and certainly the Undertaking is not revelatory of such intention. If the Court were to give full fruition to the use of the term "sureties" as conclusive indication of the existence of a surety agreement that in turn gives rise to a solidary obligation to pay Ortigas, the necessary implication would be to lay down a corresponding set of rights and obligations as between the "SURETIES" which petitioners and Matti did not clearly intend.

It is not impossible that as between Escaño, Silos and Matti, there was an agreement whereby in the event that Ortigas were to seek reimbursement from them per the terms of the Undertaking, one of them was to act as surety and to pay Ortigas in full, subject to his right to full reimbursement from the other two obligors. In such case, there would have been, in fact, a surety agreement which evinces a solidary obligation in favor of Ortigas. Yet if there was indeed such an agreement, it does not appear on the record. More consequentially, no such intention is reflected in the Undertaking itself, the very document that creates the conditional obligation that petitioners and Matti reimburse Ortigas should he be made to pay PDCP. The mere utilization of the term "SURETIES" could not work to such effect, especially as it does not appear who exactly is the principal debtor whose obligation is "assured" or "guaranteed" by the surety.

Ortigas further argues that the nature of the Undertaking requires "solidary obligation of the Sureties," since the Undertaking expressly seeks to "reliev[e] obligors of any and all liability arising from their said joint and several undertaking with [F]alcon," and for the "sureties" to "irrevocably agree and undertake to assume all of obligors said guarantees to PDCP."50 We do not doubt that a finding of solidary liability among the petitioners works to the benefit of Ortigas in the facilitation of these goals, yet the Undertaking itself contains no stipulation or clause that establishes petitioners’ obligation to Ortigas as solidary. Moreover, the aims adverted to by Ortigas do not by themselves establish that the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Even if the liability of petitioners and Matti were adjudged as merely joint, the full relief and reimbursement of Ortigas arising from his payment to PDCP would still be accomplished through the complete execution of such a judgment.

Petitioners further claim that they are not liable for attorney’s fees since the Undertaking contained no such stipulation for attorney’s fees, and that the situation did not fall under the instances under Article 2208 of the Civil Code where attorney’s fees are recoverable in the absence of stipulation.

We disagree. As Ortigas points out, the acts or omissions of the petitioners led to his being impleaded in the suit filed by PDCP. The Undertaking was precisely executed as a means to obtain the release of Ortigas and the Scholeys from their previous obligations as sureties of Falcon, especially considering that they were already divesting their shares in the corporation. Specific provisions in the Undertaking obligate petitioners to work for the release of Ortigas from his surety agreements with Falcon. Specific provisions likewise mandate the immediate repayment of Ortigas should he still be made to pay PDCP by reason of the guaranty agreements from which he was ostensibly to be released through the efforts of petitioners. None of these provisions were complied with by petitioners, and Article 2208(2) precisely allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees "[w]hen the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest."

Finally, petitioners claim that they should not be liable for interest since the Undertaking does not contain any stipulation for interest, and assuming that they are liable, that the rate of interest should not be 12% per annum, as adjudged by the RTC.

The seminal ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals51 set forth the rules with respect to the manner of computing legal interest:

I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil

Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.52

Since what was the constituted in the Undertaking consisted of a payment in a sum of money, the rate of interest thereon shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand. The interest rate imposed by the RTC is thus proper. However, the computation should be reckoned from judicial or extrajudicial demand. Per records, there is no indication that Ortigas made any extrajudicial demand to petitioners and Matti after he paid PDCP, but on 14 March 1994, Ortigas made a judicial demand when he filed a Third-Party Complaint praying that petitioners and Matti be made to reimburse him for the payments made to PDCP. It is the filing of this Third Party Complaint on 14 March 1994 that should be considered as the date of judicial demand from which the computation of interest should be reckoned.53 Since the RTC held that interest should be computed from 28 February 1994, the appropriate redefinition should be made.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED in PART. The Order of the Regional Trial Court dated 5 October 1995 is modified by declaring that petitioners and Joseph M. Matti are only jointly liable, not jointly and severally, to respondent Rafael Ortigas, Jr. in the amount of P1,300,000.00. The Order of the Regional Trial Court dated 7 March 1996 is MODIFIED in that the legal interest of 12% per annum on the amount of P1,300,000.00 is to be computed from 14 March 1994, the date of judicial demand, and not from 28 February 1994 as directed in the Order of the lower court. The assailed rulings are affirmed in all other respects. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 146511             September 5, 2007

TOMAS ANG, petitioner, vs.ASSOCIATED BANK AND ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules on Civil Procedure seeks to review the October 9, 2000 Decision1 and December 26, 2000 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53413 which reversed and set aside the January 5, 1996 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, in Civil Case No. 20,299-90, dismissing the complaint filed by respondents for collection of a sum of money.

On August 28, 1990, respondent Associated Bank (formerly Associated Banking Corporation and now known as United Overseas Bank Philippines) filed a collection suit against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang for the two (2) promissory notes that they executed as principal debtor and co-maker, respectively.

In the Complaint,4 respondent Bank alleged that on October 3 and 9, 1978, the defendants obtained a loan ofP50,000, evidenced by a promissory note bearing PN-No. DVO-78-382, and P30,000, evidenced by a promissory note bearing PN-No. DVO-78-390. As agreed, the loan would be payable, jointly and severally, on January 31, 1979 and December 8, 1978, respectively. In addition, subsequent amendments5 to the promissory notes as well as the disclosure statements6 stipulated that the loan would earn 14% interest rate per annum, 2% service charge per annum, 1% penalty charge per month from due date until fully paid, and attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the outstanding obligation.

Despite repeated demands for payment, the latest of which were on September 13, 1988 and September 9, 1986, on Antonio Ang Eng Liong and Tomas Ang, respectively, respondent Bank claimed that the defendants failed and refused to settle their obligation, resulting in a total indebtedness of P539,638.96 as of July 31, 1990, broken down as follows:

In his Answer,7 Antonio Ang Eng Liong only admitted to have secured a loan amounting to P80,000. He pleaded though that the bank "be ordered to submit a more reasonable computation" considering that there had been "no correct and reasonable statement of account" sent to him by the bank, which was allegedly collecting excessive interest, penalty charges, and attorney's fees despite knowledge that his business was destroyed by fire, hence, he had no source of income for several years.

For his part, petitioner Tomas Ang filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim.8 He interposed the affirmative defenses that: the bank is not the real party in interest as it is not the holder of the promissory notes, much less a holder for value or a holder in due course; the bank knew that he did not receive any valuable consideration for affixing his signatures on the notes but merely lent his name as an accommodation party; he accepted the promissory notes in blank, with only the printed provisions and the signature of Antonio Ang Eng Liong appearing therein; it was the bank which

completed the notes upon the orders, instructions, or representations of his co-defendant; PN-No. DVO-78-382 was completed in excess of or contrary to the authority given by him to his co-defendant who represented that he would only borrow P30,000 from the bank; his signature in PN-No. DVO-78-390 was procured through fraudulent means when his co-defendant claimed that his first loan did not push through; the promissory notes did not indicate in what capacity he was intended to be bound; the bank granted his co-defendant successive extensions of time within which to pay, without his (Tomas Ang) knowledge and consent; the bank imposed new and additional stipulations on interest, penalties, services charges and attorney's fees more onerous than the terms of the notes, without his knowledge and consent, in the absence of legal and factual basis and in violation of the Usury Law; the bank caused the inclusion in the promissory notes of stipulations such as waiver of presentment for payment and notice of dishonor which are against public policy; and the notes had been impaired since they were never presented for payment and demands were made only several years after they fell due when his co-defendant could no longer pay them.

Regarding his counterclaim, Tomas Ang argued that by reason of the bank's acts or omissions, it should be held liable for the amount of P50,000 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Furthermore, on his cross-claim against Antonio Ang Eng Liong, he averred that he should be reimbursed by his co-defendant any and all sums that he may be adjudged liable to pay, plus P30,000, P20,000 and P50,000 for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, respectively.

In its Reply,9 respondent Bank countered that it is the real party in interest and is the holder of the notes since the Associated Banking Corporation and Associated Citizens Bank are its predecessors-in-interest. The fact that Tomas Ang never received any moneys in consideration of the two (2) loans and that such was known to the bank are immaterial because, as an accommodation maker, he is considered as a solidary debtor who is primarily liable for the payment of the promissory notes. Citing Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), the bank posited that absence or failure of consideration is not a matter of defense; neither is the fact that the holder knew him to be only an accommodation party.

Respondent Bank likewise retorted that the promissory notes were completely filled up at the time of their delivery. Assuming that such was not the case, Sec. 14 of the NIL provides that the bank has the prima facieauthority to complete the blank form. Moreover, it is presumed that one who has signed as a maker acted with care and had signed the document with full knowledge of its content. The bank noted that Tomas Ang is a prominent businessman in Davao City who has been engaged in the auto parts business for several years, hence, certainly he is not so naïve as to sign the notes without knowing or bothering to verify the amounts of the loans covered by them. Further, he is already in estoppel since despite receipt of several demand letters there was not a single protest raised

by him that he signed for only one note in the amount of P30,000.

PN-No. DVO-78-382 PN-No. DVO-78-390

Outstanding Balance P50,000.00 P30,000.00

Add Past due charges for 4,199 days (from 01-31-79 to 07-31-90)

Past due charges for 4,253 days (from 12-8-78 to 07-31-90)

14% Interest P203,538.98 P125,334.41

2% Service Charge P11,663.89 P7,088.34

12% Overdue Charge P 69,983.34 P 42,530.00

Total P285,186.21 P174,952.75

Less: Charges paid P 500.00 None

Amount Due P334,686.21 P204,952.75

It was denied by the bank that there were extensions of time for payment accorded to Antonio Ang Eng Liong. Granting that such were the case, it said that the same would not relieve Tomas Ang from liability as he would still be liable for the whole obligation less the share of his co-debtor who received the extended term.

The bank also asserted that there were no additional or new stipulations imposed other than those agreed upon. The penalty charge, service charge, and attorney's fees were reflected in the amendments to the promissory notes and disclosure statements. Reference to the Usury Law was misplaced as usury is legally non-existent; at present, interest can be charged depending on the agreement of the lender and the borrower.

Lastly, the bank contended that the provisions on presentment for payment and notice of dishonor were expressly waived by Tomas Ang and that such waiver is not against public policy pursuant to Sections 82 (c) and 109 of the NIL. In fact, there is even no necessity therefor since being a solidary debtor he is absolutely required to pay and primarily liable on both promissory notes.

On October 19, 1990, the trial court issued a preliminary pre-trial order directing the parties to submit their respective pre-trial guide.10 When Antonio Ang Eng Liong failed to submit his brief, the bank filed an ex-partemotion to declare him in default.11 Per Order of November 23, 1990, the court granted the motion and set the ex-parte hearing for the presentation of the bank's evidence.12 Despite Tomas Ang's motion13 to modify the Order so as to exclude or cancel the ex-parte hearing based on then Sec. 4, Rule 18 of the old Rules of Court (now Sec. 3[c.], Rule 9 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure), the hearing nonetheless proceeded.14

Eventually, a decision15 was rendered by the trial court on February 21, 1991. For his supposed bad faith and obstinate refusal despite several demands from the bank, Antonio Ang Eng Liong was ordered to pay the principal amount of P80,000 plus 14% interest per annum and 2% service charge per annum. The overdue penalty charge and attorney's fees were, however, reduced for being excessive, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against defendant Antonio Ang Eng Liong and in favor of plaintiff, ordering the former to pay the latter:

On the first cause of action:

1) the amount of P50,000.00 representing the principal obligation with 14% interest per annum from June 27, 1983 with 2% service charge and 6% overdue penalty charges per annum until fully paid;

2) P11,663.89 as accrued service charge; and

3) P34,991.67 as accrued overdue penalty charge.

On the second cause of action:

1) the amount of P50,000.00 (sic) representing the principal account with 14% interest from June 27, 1983 with 2% service charge and 6% overdue penalty charges per annum until fully paid;

2) P7,088.34 representing accrued service charge;

3) P21,265.00 as accrued overdue penalty charge;

4) the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

5) the amount of P620.00 as litigation expenses and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.16

The decision became final and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom. Upon the bank's ex-parte motion, the court accordingly issued a writ of execution on April 5, 1991.17

Thereafter, on June 3, 1991, the court set the pre-trial conference between the bank and Tomas Ang,18 who, in turn, filed a Motion to Dismiss19 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the case in view of the alleged finality of the February 21, 1991 Decision. He contended that Sec. 4, Rule 18 of the old Rules sanctions only one judgment in case of several defendants, one of whom is declared in default. Moreover, in his Supplemental Motion to Dismiss,20 Tomas Ang maintained that he is released from his obligation as a solidary guarantor and accommodation party because, by the bank's actions, he is now precluded from asserting his cross-claim against Antonio Ang Eng Liong, upon whom a final and executory judgment had already been issued.

The court denied the motion as well as the motion for reconsideration thereon.21 Tomas Ang subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before this Court, which, however, resolved to refer the same to the Court of Appeals.22 In accordance with the prayer of Tomas Ang, the appellate court promulgated its Decision on January 29, 1992 in CA G.R. SP No. 26332, which annulled and set aside the portion of the Order dated November 23, 1990 setting the ex-parte presentation of the bank's evidence against Antonio Ang Eng Liong, the Decision dated February 21, 1991 rendered against him based on such evidence, and the Writ of Execution issued on April 5, 1991.23

Trial then ensued between the bank and Tomas Ang. Upon the latter's motion during the pre-trial conference, Antonio Ang Eng Liong was again declared in default for his failure to answer the cross-claim within the reglementary period.24

When Tomas Ang was about to present evidence in his behalf, he filed a Motion for Production of Documents,25reasoning:

x x x

2. That corroborative to, and/or preparatory or incident to his testimony[,] there is [a] need for him to examine original records in the custody and possession of plaintiff, viz:

a. original Promissory Note (PN for brevity) # DVO-78-382 dated October 3, 1978[;]

b. original of Disclosure Statement in reference to PN # DVO-78-382;

c. original of PN # DVO-78-390 dated October 9, 1978;

d. original of Disclosure Statement in reference to PN # DVO-78-390;

e. Statement or Record of Account with the Associated Banking Corporation or its successor, of Antonio Ang in CA No. 470 (cf. Exh. O) including bank records, withdrawal slips, notices, other papers and relevant dates relative to the overdraft of Antonio Eng Liong in CA No. 470;

f. Loan Applications of Antonio Ang Eng Liong or borrower relative to PN Nos. DVO-78-382 and DVO-78-390 (supra);

g. Other supporting papers and documents submitted by Antonio Ang Eng Liong relative to his loan application vis-à-vis PN. Nos. DVO-78-382 and DVO-78-390 such as financial statements, income tax returns, etc. as required by the Central Bank or bank rules and regulations.

3. That the above matters are very material to the defenses of defendant Tomas Ang, viz:

- the bank is not a holder in due course when it accepted the [PNs] in blank.

- The real borrower is Antonio Ang Eng Liong which fact is known to the bank.

- That the PAYEE not being a holder in due course and knowing that defendant Tomas Ang is merely an accommodation party, the latter may raise against such payee or holder or successor-in-interest (of the notes) PERSONAL and EQUITABLE DEFENSES such as FRAUD in INDUCEMENT, DISCHARGE ON NOTE, Application of [Articles] 2079, 2080 and 1249 of the Civil Code, NEGLIGENCE in delaying collection despite Eng Liong's OVERDRAFT in C.A. No. 470, etc.26

In its Order dated May 16, 1994,27 the court denied the motion stating that the promissory notes and the disclosure statements have already been shown to and inspected by Tomas Ang during the trial, as in fact he has already copies of the same; the Statements or Records of Account of Antonio Ang Eng Liong in CA No. 470, relative to his overdraft, are immaterial since, pursuant to the previous ruling of the court, he is being sued for the notes and not for the overdraft which is personal to Antonio Ang Eng Liong; and besides its non-existence in the bank's records, there would be legal obstacle for the production and inspection of the income tax return of Antonio Ang Eng Liong if done without his consent.

When the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied, Tomas Ang filed a petition for certiorariand prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and restraining order before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 34840.28 On August 17, 1994, however, the Court of Appeals denied the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.29

Meanwhile, notwithstanding its initial rulings that Tomas Ang was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence for failure to appear during the pendency of his petition before the Court of Appeals, the trial court decided to continue with the hearing of the case.30

After the trial, Tomas Ang offered in evidence several documents, which included a copy of the Trust Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the Asset Privatization Trust, as certified by the notary public, and news clippings from the Manila Bulletin dated May 18, 1994 and May 30, 1994.31 All the documentary exhibits were admitted for failure of the bank to submit its comment to the formal offer.32 Thereafter, Tomas Ang elected to withdraw his petition in CA G.R. SP No. 34840 before the Court of Appeals, which was then granted.33

On January 5, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment against the bank, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action.34 It held that:

Exh. "9" and its [sub-markings], the Trust Agreement dated 27 February 1987 for the defense shows that: the Associated Bank as of June 30, 1986 is one of DBP's or Development Bank of the [Philippines'] non-performing accounts for transfer; on February 27, 1987 through Deeds of Transfer executed by and between the Philippine National Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines and the National Government, both financial institutions assigned, transferred and conveyed their non-performing assets to the National Government; the National Government in turn and as TRUSTOR, transferred, conveyed and assigned by way of trust unto the Asset Privatization Trust said non-performing assets, [which] took title to and possession of, [to] conserve, provisionally manage and dispose[,] of said assets identified for privatization or disposition; one of the powers and duties of the APT with respect to trust properties consisting of receivables is to handle the administration, collection and enforcement of the receivables; to bring suit to enforce payment of the obligations or any installment thereof or to settle or compromise any of such obligations, or any other claim or demand which the government may have against any person or persons[.]

The Manila Bulletin news clippings dated May 18, 1994 and May 30, 1994, Exh. "9-A", "9-B", "9-C", and "9-D", show that the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the rehabilitation plan of the Associated Bank. One main feature of the rehabilitation plan included the financial assistance for the bank by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) by way of the purchase of AB Assets worth P1.3945 billion subject to a buy-back arrangement over a 10 year period. The PDIC had approved of the rehab scheme, which included the purchase of AB's bad loans worth P1.86 at 25% discount. This will then be paid by AB within a 10-year period plus a yield comparable to the prevailing market rates x x x.

Based then on the evidence presented by the defendant Tomas Ang, it would readily appear that at the time this suit for Sum of Money was filed which was on August [28], 1990, the notes were held by the Asset Privatization Trust by virtue of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement, which was empowered to bring suit to enforce payment of the obligations. Consequently, defendant Tomas Ang has sufficiently established that plaintiff at the time this suit was filed was not the holder of the notes to warrant the dismissal of the complaint.35

Respondent Bank then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In the appellant's brief captioned,"ASSOCIATED BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant versus ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG and TOMAS ANG, Defendants, TOMAS ANG, Defendant-Appellee," the following errors were alleged:

I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING DEFENDANT ANTONIO ANG ENG LIONG AND DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TOMAS ANG LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ON THEIR UNPAID LOANS DESPITE THE LATTER'S DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PROVING THE SAID OBLIGATIONS.

II.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS WHICH WERE COMPLETELY HEARSAY IN CHARACTER AND IMPROPER FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE.36

The bank stressed that it has established the causes of action outlined in its Complaint by a preponderance of evidence. As regards the Deed of Transfer and Trust Agreement, it contended that the same were never authenticated by any witness in the course of the trial; the Agreement, which was not even legible, did not mention the promissory notes subject of the Complaint; the bank is not a party to the Agreement, which showed that it was between the Government of the Philippines, acting through the Committee on Privatization represented by the Secretary of Finance as trustor and the Asset Privatization Trust, which was created by virtue of Proclamation No. 50; and the Agreement did not reflect the signatures of the contracting parties. Lastly, the bank averred that the news items appearing in the Manila Bulletin could not be the subject of judicial notice since they were completely hearsay in character.37

On October 9, 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court's ruling. The dispositive portion of the Decision38 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 20,299-90 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering defendant-appellee Tomas Ang to pay plaintiff-appellant Associated Bank the following:

1. P50,000.00 representing the principal amount of the loan under PN-No. DVO-78-382 plus 14% interest thereon per annum computed from January 31, 1979 until the full amount thereof is paid;

2. P30,000.00 representing the principal amount of the loan under PN-No. DVO-78-390 plus 14% interest thereon per annum computed from December 8, 1978 until the full amount thereof is paid;

All other claims of the plaintiff-appellant are DISMISSED for lack of legal basis. Defendant-appellee's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED for lack of legal and factual bases.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.39

The appellate court disregarded the bank's first assigned error for being "irrelevant in the final determination of the case" and found its second assigned error as "not meritorious." Instead, it posed

for resolution the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for collection of sum of money for lack of cause of action as the bank was said to be not the "holder" of the notes at the time the collection case was filed.

In answering the lone issue, the Court of Appeals held that the bank is a "holder" under Sec. 191 of the NIL. It concluded that despite the execution of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement, the Asset Privatization Trust cannot be declared as the "holder" of the subject promissory notes for the reason that it is neither the payee or indorsee of the notes in possession thereof nor is it the bearer of said notes. The Court of Appeals observed that the bank, as the payee, did not indorse the notes to the Asset Privatization Trust despite the execution of the Deeds of Transfer and Trust Agreement and that the notes continued to remain with the bank until the institution of the collection suit.

With the bank as the "holder" of the promissory notes, the Court of Appeals held that Tomas Ang is accountable therefor in his capacity as an accommodation party. Citing Sec. 29 of the NIL, he is liable to the bank in spite of the latter's knowledge, at the time of taking the notes, that he is only an accommodation party. Moreover, as a co-maker who agreed to be jointly and severally liable on the promissory notes, Tomas Ang cannot validly set up the defense that he did not receive any consideration therefor as the fact that the loan was granted to the principal debtor already constitutes a sufficient consideration.

Further, the Court of Appeals agreed with the bank that the experience of Tomas Ang in business rendered it implausible that he would just sign the promissory notes as a co-maker without even checking the real amount of the debt to be incurred, or that he merely acted on the belief that the first loan application was cancelled. According to the appellate court, it is apparent that he was negligent in falling for the alibi of Antonio Ang Eng Liong and such fact would not serve to exonerate him from his responsibility under the notes.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied the claims of the bank for service, penalty and overdue charges as well as attorney's fees on the ground that the promissory notes made no mention of such charges/fees.

In his motion for reconsideration,40 Tomas Ang raised for the first time the assigned errors as follows:

x x x

2) Related to the above jurisdictional issues, defendant-appellee Tomas Ang has recently discovered that upon the filing of the complaint on August 28, 1990, under the jurisdictional rule laid down in BP Blg. 129, appellant bank fraudulently failed to specify the amount of compounded interest at 14% per annum, service charges at 2% per annum and overdue penalty charges at 12% per annum in the prayer of the complaint as of the time of its filing, paying a total of only P640.00(!!!) as filing and court docket fees although the total sum involved as of that time was P647,566.75 including 20% attorney's fees. In fact, the stated interest in the body of the complaint alone amount to P328,373.39 (which is actually compounded and capitalized) in both causes of action and the total service and overdue penalties and charges and attorney's fees further amount to P239,193.36 in both causes of action, as of July 31, 1990, the time of filing of the complaint. Significantly, appellant fraudulently misled the Court, describing the 14% imposition as interest, when in fact the same was capitalized as principal by appellant bank every month to earn more interest, as stated in the notes. In view thereof, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the case and the same may not be now corrected by the filing of deficiency fees because the causes of action had already prescribed and more

importantly, the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court had been increased to P100,000.00 inprincipal claims last March 20, 1999, pursuant to SC Circular No. 21-99, section 5 of RA No. 7691, and section 31, Book I of the 1987 Administrative Code. In other words, as of today, jurisdiction over the subject falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC, particularly if the bank foregoes capitalization of the stipulated interest.

3) BY FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE OF ITS APPEAL AND APPEAL BRIEF TO APPELLEE ANG ENG LIONG, THE APPEALED JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH LEFT OUT TOMAS ANG'S CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST ENG LIONG (BECAUSE IT DISMISSED THE MAIN CLAIM), HAD LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY, AS AGAINST ENG LIONG. Accordingly, Tomas Ang's right of subrogation against Ang Eng Liong, expressed in his cross-claim, is now SEVERAL TIMES foreclosed because of the fault or negligence of appellant bank since 1979 up to its insistence of an ex-parte trial, and now when it failed to serve notice of appeal and appellant's brief upon him. Accordingly, appellee Tomas Ang should be released from his suretyship obligation pursuant to Art. 2080 of the Civil Code. The above is related to the issues above-stated.

4) This Court may have erred in ADDING or ASSIGNING its own bill of error for the benefit of appellant bank which defrauded the judiciary by the payment of deficient docket fees.41

Finding no cogent or compelling reason to disturb the Decision, the Court of Appeals denied the motion in its Resolution dated December 26, 2000.42

Petitioner now submits the following issues for resolution:

1. Is [A]rticle 2080 of the Civil Code applicable to discharge petitioner Tomas Ang as accommodation maker or surety because of the failure of [private] respondent bank to serve its notice of appeal upon the principal debtor, respondent Eng Liong?

2. Did the trial court have jurisdiction over the case at all?

3. Did the Court of Appeals [commit] error in assigning its own error and raising its own issue?

4. Are petitioner's other real and personal defenses such as successive extensions coupled with fraudulent collusion to hide Eng Liong's default, the payee's grant of additional burdens, coupled with the insolvency of the principal debtor, and the defense of incomplete but delivered instrument, meritorious?43

Petitioner allegedly learned after the promulgation of the Court of Appeals' decision that, pursuant to the parties' agreement on the compounding of interest with the principal amount (per month in case of default), the interest on the promissory notes as of July 31, 1990 should have been only P81,647.22 for PN No. DVO-78-382 (instead of P203,538.98) and P49,618.33 for PN No. DVO-78-390 (instead of P125,334.41) while the principal debt as of said date should increase to P647,566.75 (instead of P539,638.96). He submits that the bank carefully and shrewdly hid the fact by describing the amounts as interest instead of being part of either the principal or penalty in order to pay a lesser amount of docket fees. According to him, the total fees that should have been

paid at the time of the filing of the complaint on August 28, 1990 was P2,216.30 and not P614.00 or a shortage of 71%. Petitioner contends that the bank may not now pay the deficiency because the last demand letter sent to him was dated September 9, 1986, or more than twenty years have elapsed such that prescription had already set in. Consequently, the bank's claim must be dismissed as the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals should not have assigned its own error and raised it as an issue of the case, contending that no question should be entertained on appeal unless it has been advanced in the court below or is within the issues made by the parties in the pleadings. At any rate, he opines that the appellate court's decision that the bank is the real party in interest because it is the payee named in the note or the holder thereof is too simplistic since: (1) the power and control of Asset Privatization Trust over the bank are clear from the explicit terms of the duly certified trust documents and deeds of transfer and are confirmed by the newspaper clippings; (2) even under P.D. No. 902-A or the General Banking Act, where a corporation or a bank is under receivership, conservation or rehabilitation, it is only the representative (liquidator, receiver, trustee or conservator) who may properly act for said entity, and, in this case, the bank was held by Asset Privatization Trust as trustee; and (3) it is not entirely accurate to say that the payee who has not indorsed the notes in all cases is the real party in interest because the rights of the payee may be subject of an assignment of incorporeal rights under Articles 1624 and 1625 of the Civil Code.

Lastly, petitioner maintains that when respondent Bank served its notice of appeal and appellant's brief only on him, it rendered the judgment of the trial court final and executory with respect to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, which, in effect, released him (Antonio Ang Eng Liong) from any and all liability under the promissory notes and, thereby, foreclosed petitioner's cross-claims. By such act, the bank, even if it be the "holder" of the promissory notes, allegedly discharged a simple contract for the payment of money (Sections 119 [d] and 122, NIL [Act No. 2031]), prevented a surety like petitioner from being subrogated in the shoes of his principal (Article 2080, Civil Code), and impaired the notes, producing the effect of payment (Article 1249, Civil Code).

The petition is unmeritorious.

Procedurally, it is well within the authority of the Court of Appeals to raise, if it deems proper under the circumstances obtaining, error/s not assigned on an appealed case. In Mendoza v. Bautista,44 this Court recognized the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned, thus:

As a rule, no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its consideration. Higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.

However, as with most procedural rules, this maxim is subject to exceptions. Indeed, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 8. Questions that may be decided. — No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered, unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.

Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent. (Citations omitted)45

To the Court's mind, even if the Court of Appeals regarded petitioner's two assigned errors as "irrelevant" and "not meritorious," the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for collection of sum of money for lack of cause of action (on the ground that the bank was not the "holder" of the notes at the time of the filing of the action) is in reality closely related to and determinant of the resolution of whether the lower court correctly ruled in not holding Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang liable to the bank on their unpaid loans despite documentary exhibits allegedly proving their obligations and in dismissing the complaint based on newspaper clippings. Hence, no error could be ascribed to the Court of Appeals on this point.

Now, the more relevant question is: who is the real party in interest at the time of the institution of the complaint, is it the bank or the Asset Privatization Trust?

To answer the query, a brief history on the creation of the Asset Privatization Trust is proper.

Taking into account the imperative need of formally launching a program for the rationalization of the government corporate sector, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 5046 on December 8, 1986. As one of the twin cornerstones of the program was to establish the privatization of a good number of government corporations, the proclamation created the Asset Privatization Trust, which would, for the benefit of the National Government, take title to and possession of, conserve, provisionally manage and dispose of transferred assets that were identified for privatization or disposition.47

In accordance with the provisions of Section 2348 of the proclamation, then President Aquino subsequently issued Administrative Order No. 14 on February 3, 1987, which approved the identification of and transfer to the National Government of certain assets (consisting of loans, equity investments, accrued interest receivables, acquired assets and other assets) and liabilities (consisting of deposits, borrowings, other liabilities and contingent guarantees) of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The transfer of assets was implemented through a Deed of Transfer executed on February 27, 1987 between the National Government, on one hand, and the DBP and PNB, on the other. In turn, the National Government designated the Asset Privatization Trust to act as its trustee through a Trust Agreement, whereby the non-performing accounts of DBP and PNB, including, among others, the DBP's equity with respondent Bank, were entrusted to the Asset Privatization Trust.49 As provided for in the Agreement, among the powers and duties of the Asset Privatization Trust with respect to the trust properties consisting of receivables was to handle their administration and collection by bringing suit to enforce payment of the obligations or any installment thereof or settling or compromising any of such obligations or any other claim or demand which the Government may have against any person or persons, and to do all acts, institute all proceedings, and to exercise all other rights, powers, and privileges of ownership that an absolute owner of the properties would otherwise have the right to do.50

Incidentally, the existence of the Asset Privatization Trust would have expired five (5) years from the date of issuance of Proclamation No. 50.51 However, its original term was extended from December 8, 1991 up to August 31, 1992,52 and again from December 31, 1993 until June 30, 1995,53 and then from July 1, 1995 up to December 31, 1999,54 and further from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2000.55 Thenceforth, the Privatization and Management Office was established and took over, among others, the powers, duties and functions of the Asset Privatization Trust under the proclamation.56

Based on the above backdrop, respondent Bank does not appear to be the real party in interest when it instituted the collection suit on August 28, 1990 against Antonio Ang Eng Liong and petitioner Tomas Ang. At the time the complaint was filed in the trial court, it was the Asset Privatization Trust which had the authority to enforce its claims against both debtors. In fact, during the pre-trial conference, Atty. Roderick Orallo, counsel for the bank, openly admitted that it was under the trusteeship of the Asset Privatization Trust.57 The Asset Privatization Trust, which should have been represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, had the authority to file and prosecute the case.

The foregoing notwithstanding, this Court can not, at present, readily subscribe to petitioner's insistence that the case must be dismissed. Significantly, it stands without refute, both in the pleadings as well as in the evidence presented during the trial and up to the time this case reached the Court, that the issue had been rendered moot with the occurrence of a supervening event – the "buy-back" of the bank by its former owner, Leonardo Ty, sometime in October 1993. By such re-acquisition from the Asset Privatization Trust when the case was still pending in the lower court, the bank reclaimed its real and actual interest over the unpaid promissory notes; hence, it could rightfully qualify as a "holder"58 thereof under the NIL.

Notably, Section 29 of the NIL defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person." As gleaned from the text, an accommodation party is one who meets all the three requisites, viz: (1) he must be a party to the instrument, signing as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he must not receive value therefor; and (3) he must sign for the purpose of lending his name or credit to some other person.59An accommodation party lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money; he receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other party/ies thereto.60 The accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him or her to be merely an accommodation party, as if the contract was not for accommodation.61

As petitioner acknowledged it to be, the relation between an accommodation party and the accommodated party is one of principal and surety – the accommodation party being the surety.62 As such, he is deemed an original promisor and debtor from the beginning;63 he is considered in law as the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter since their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable.64 Although a contract of suretyship is in essence accessory or collateral to a valid principal obligation, the surety's liability to the creditor is immediate, primary and absolute; he is directly and equally bound with the principal.65 As an equivalent of a regular party to the undertaking, a surety becomes liable to the debt and duty of the principal obligor even without possessing a direct or personal interest in the obligations nor does he receive any benefit therefrom.66

Contrary to petitioner's adamant stand, however, Article 208067 of the Civil Code does not apply in a contract of suretyship.68 Art. 2047 of the Civil Code states that if a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code

must be observed. Accordingly, Articles 1207 up to 1222 of the Code (on joint and solidary obligations) shall govern the relationship of petitioner with the bank.

The case of Inciong, Jr. v. CA69 is illuminating:

Petitioner also argues that the dismissal of the complaint against Naybe, the principal debtor, and against Pantanosas, his co-maker, constituted a release of his obligation, especially because the dismissal of the case against Pantanosas was upon the motion of private respondent itself. He cites as basis for his argument, Article 2080 of the Civil Code which provides that:

"The guarantors, even though they be solidary, are released from their obligation whenever by come act of the creditor, they cannot be subrogated to the rights, mortgages, and preferences of the latter."

It is to be noted, however, that petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states as follows:

"Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/we, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS at its office in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, together with interest x x x at the rate of SIXTEEN (16) per cent per annum until fully paid."

A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code states:

"By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so.

If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such a case the contract is called a suretyship." (Italics supplied.)

While a guarantor may bind himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the liability of a guarantor is different from that of a solidary debtor. Thus, Tolentino explains:

"A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor under the provisions of the second paragraph does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor, and a fiador in solidum (surety). The later, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of rights of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than those bestowed upon him in Section 4, Chapter 3, title I, Book IV of the Civil Code."

Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on joint and several obligations. Under Art. 1207 thereof, when there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the presumption is that obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt. There is a solidarily liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires.

Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories therein arejointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. (Citations omitted)70

In the instant case, petitioner agreed to be "jointly and severally" liable under the two promissory notes that he co-signed with Antonio Ang Eng Liong as the principal debtor. This being so, it is completely immaterial if the bank would opt to proceed only against petitioner or Antonio Ang Eng Liong or both of them since the law confers upon the creditor the prerogative to choose whether to enforce the entire obligation against any one, some or all of the debtors. Nonetheless, petitioner, as an accommodation party, may seek reimbursement from Antonio Ang Eng Liong, being the party accommodated.71

It is plainly mistaken for petitioner to say that just because the bank failed to serve the notice of appeal and appellant's brief to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, the trial court's judgment, in effect, became final and executory as against the latter and, thereby, bars his (petitioner's) cross-claims against him: First, although no notice of appeal and appellant's brief were served to Antonio Ang Eng Liong, he was nonetheless impleaded in the case since his name appeared in the caption of both the notice and the brief as one of the defendants-appellees;72 Second, despite including in the caption of the appellee's brief his co-debtor as one of the defendants-appellees, petitioner did not also serve him a copy thereof;73 Third, in the caption of the Court of Appeals' decision, Antonio Ang Eng Liong was expressly named as one of the defendants-appellees;74 and Fourth, it was only in his motion for reconsideration from the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals that petitioner belatedly chose to serve notice to the counsel of his co-defendant-appellee.75

Likewise, this Court rejects the contention of Antonio Ang Eng Liong, in his "special appearance" through counsel, that the Court of Appeals, much less this Court, already lacked jurisdiction over his person or over the subject matter relating to him because he was not a party in CA-G.R. CV No. 53413. Stress must be laid of the fact that he had twice put himself in default – one, in not filing a pre-trial brief and another, in not filing his answer to petitioner's cross-claims. As a matter of course, Antonio Ang Eng Liong, being a party declared in default, already waived his right to take part in the trial proceedings and had to contend with the judgment rendered by the court based on the evidence presented by the bank and petitioner. Moreover, even without considering these default judgments, Antonio Ang Eng Liong even categorically admitted having secured a loan totaling P80,000. In his Answer to the complaint, he did not deny such liability but merely pleaded that the bank "be ordered to submit a more reasonable computation" instead of collecting excessive interest, penalty charges, and attorney's fees. For failing to tender an issue and in not denying the material allegations stated in the complaint, a judgment on the pleadings76 would have also been proper since not a single issue was generated by the Answer he filed.

As the promissory notes were not discharged or impaired through any act or omission of the bank, Sections 119 (d)77 and 12278 of the NIL as well as Art. 124979 of the Civil Code would necessarily find no application. Again, neither was petitioner's right of reimbursement barred nor was the bank's right to proceed against Antonio Ang Eng Liong expressly renounced by the omission to serve notice of appeal and appellant's brief to a party already declared in default.

Consequently, in issuing the two promissory notes, petitioner as accommodating party warranted to the holder in due course that he would pay the same according to its tenor.80 It is no defense to state on his part that he did not receive any value therefor81 because the phrase "without receiving value therefor" used in Sec. 29 of the NIL means "without receiving value by virtue of the instrument" and not as it is apparently supposed to mean, "without receiving payment for lending his name."82 Stated differently, when a third person advances the face value of the note to the accommodated party at the time of its creation, the consideration for the note as regards its maker is the money advanced to the accommodated party. It is enough that value was given for the note at the time of its creation.83 As in the instant case, a sum of money was received by virtue of the notes, hence, it is immaterial so far as the bank is concerned whether one of the signers, particularly petitioner, has or has not received anything in payment of the use of his name.84

Under the law, upon the maturity of the note, a surety may pay the debt, demand the collateral security, if there be any, and dispose of it to his benefit, or, if applicable, subrogate himself in the place of the creditor with the right to enforce the guaranty against the other signers of the note for the reimbursement of what he is entitled to recover from them.85 Regrettably, none of these were prudently done by petitioner. When he was first notified by the bank sometime in 1982 regarding his accountabilities under the promissory notes, he lackadaisically relied on Antonio Ang Eng Liong, who represented that he would take care of the matter, instead of directly communicating with the bank for its settlement.86 Thus, petitioner cannot now claim that he was prejudiced by the supposed "extension of time" given by the bank to his co-debtor.

Furthermore, since the liability of an accommodation party remains not only primary but also unconditional to a holder for value, even if the accommodated party receives an extension of the period for payment without the consent of the accommodation party, the latter is still liable for the whole obligation and such extension does not release him because as far as a holder for value is concerned, he is a solidary co-debtor.87 In Clark v. Sellner,88this Court held:

x x x The mere delay of the creditor in enforcing the guaranty has not by any means impaired his action against the defendant. It should not be lost sight of that the defendant's signature on the note is an assurance to the creditor that the collateral guaranty will remain good, and that otherwise, he, the defendant, will be personally responsible for the payment.

True, that if the creditor had done any act whereby the guaranty was impaired in its value, or discharged, such an act would have wholly or partially released the surety; but it must be born in mind that it is a recognized doctrine in the matter of suretyship that with respect to the surety, the creditor is under no obligation to display any diligence in the enforcement of his rights as a creditor. His mere inaction indulgence, passiveness, or delay in proceeding against the principal debtor, or the fact that he did not enforce the guaranty or apply on the payment of such funds as were available, constitute no defense at all for the surety, unless the contract expressly requires diligence and promptness on the part of the creditor, which is not the case in the present action. There is in some decisions a tendency toward holding that the creditor's laches may discharge the surety, meaning by laches a negligent forbearance. This theory, however, is not generally accepted and the courts almost universally consider it essentially inconsistent with the relation of the parties to the note. (21 R.C.L., 1032-1034)89

Neither can petitioner benefit from the alleged "insolvency" of Antonio Ang Eng Liong for want of clear and convincing evidence proving the same. Assuming it to be true, he also did not exercise diligence in demanding security to protect himself from the danger thereof in the event that he (petitioner) would eventually be sued by the bank. Further, whether petitioner may or may not obtain

security from Antonio Ang Eng Liong cannot in any manner affect his liability to the bank; the said remedy is a matter of concern exclusively between themselves as accommodation party and accommodated party. The fact that petitioner stands only as a surety in relation to Antonio Ang Eng Liong is immaterial to the claim of the bank and does not a whit diminish nor defeat the rights of the latter as a holder for value. To sanction his theory is to give unwarranted legal recognition to the patent absurdity of a situation where a co-maker, when sued on an instrument by a holder in due course and for value, can escape liability by the convenient expedient of interposing the defense that he is a merely an accommodation party.90

In sum, as regards the other issues and errors alleged in this petition, the Court notes that these were the very same questions of fact raised on appeal before the Court of Appeals, although at times couched in different terms and explained more lengthily in the petition. Suffice it to say that the same, being factual, have been satisfactorily passed upon and considered both by the trial and appellate courts. It is doctrinal that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Save for the most cogent and compelling reason, it is not our function under the rule to examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties all over again.91

WHEREFORE, the October 9, 2000 Decision and December 26, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53413 are AFFIRMED. The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.