Case Digest (G.R. No. 185269)
Facts:
Asiatrust Development Bank v. Carmelo H. Tuble, G.R. No. 183987, July 25, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Carmelo H. Tuble, a former vice-president of petitioner Asiatrust Development Bank, availed himself of the bank’s car incentive plan and various loan privileges, and was entitled to a Senior Managers Deferred Incentive Plan (DIP). He acquired a Nissan Vanette under an arrangement styled as a lease (terminable upon resignation) and obtained three loans: a real estate loan (Promissory Note No. 0142, dated 18 January 1993, maturing 1 January 1999, with no stated interest), a consumption loan (Promissory Note No. 0143, dated 10 January 1994, bearing 18% per annum), and an alleged salary loan.
Tuble resigned on 30 March 1995. The bank initially demanded payment and the return of the vehicle; the van was not surrendered and the bank later filed and won a replevin action to recover it. The bank subsequently instituted extrajudicial foreclosure based solely on the real estate loan of P421,800; it acquired the foreclosed property at sale. Tuble redeemed the foreclosed property on 17 March 1997 by paying P1,318,401.91, a sum that he later contested as having been inflated by interest, charges and other items the bank had unilaterally imposed. After redemption and issuance of a bank clearance, Tuble received a manager’s check for P166,049.73 as his DIP share.
Tuble filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 67973) to recover P896,602.02 representing the excess charges in the redemption price and for moral and exemplary damages. The RTC, in a 15 May 2006 decision, found the redemption price excessive, deleted various charges (including the 18% annual interest and other items the bank had added), awarded a refund and granted P200,000 moral and P50,000 exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 87410, affirmed by Decision dated 28 March 2008 and Resolution dated 30 July 2008. Petitioner brought the present Rule...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the bank include an 18% per annum interest (and other unlisted charges) in the redemption price of the foreclosed property by invoking the mortgage’s dragnet clause and Promissory Note No. 0143?
- May the bank collect interest on Promissory Note No. 0142 (including legal or statutory interest) against Tuble in computing the redemption price?
- Were the RTC’s awards of moral and exemplary da...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)