Case Digest (G.R. No. 231787)
Facts:
In Leonardo Bognot v. RRI Lending Corporation, G.R. No. 180144, decided September 24, 2014 under the 1987 Constitution, the petitioner, Leonardo Bognot, and his brother Rolando obtained a ₱500,000 loan from respondent RRI Lending Corporation, represented by its General Manager Dario J. Bernardez, in September 1996. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a post-dated check due November 30, 1996. Petitioner renewed the loan monthly—each time paying a ₱54,600 renewal fee, issuing a new post-dated check, and receiving cancellation and return of the prior check. In March 1997, Promissory Note No. 97-035 and a BPI check dated April 1, 1997 were executed, with successive renewals until June 30, 1997. Respondent superimposed “June 30, 1997” on the note by rubber stamp. Shortly before maturity, Julieta Bognot (Rolando’s wife) applied for another renewal, issued Promissory Note No. 97-051 and an IBE check for ₱54,600 dated July 30, 1997, and took the loan documents homCase Digest (G.R. No. 231787)
Facts:
- Parties and Loan Contract
- RRI Lending Corporation (“respondent”) is a metropolitan lender represented by its GM, Dario J. Bernardez.
- In September 1996, Leonardo Bognot (“petitioner”) and his brother Rolando obtained a ₱500,000 loan from respondent, payable November 30, 1996, evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a post–dated check.
- Renewals and Subsequent Events
- The loan was renewed monthly through March 1997: petitioner paid ₱54,600 fees per renewal, issued new post–dated checks, and respondent canceled and returned prior checks.
- On March 31, 1997, petitioner executed Promissory Note No. 97-035 (due April 1, 1997) with a BPI check as security. This renewal continued through June 30, 1997 (Official Receipt No. 797, Disclosure Statement May 30, 1997), and respondent rubber-stamped “June 30, 1997” on the note.
- In July 1997, Mrs. Julieta Bognot (Rolando’s wife) attempted another renewal: she signed Promissory Note No. 97-051 and IBE Check No. 00012522 dated July 30, 1997 for the fee, took the documents home, but neither returned them nor issued a replacement check.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- November 27, 1997: respondent sued both Bognot brothers for non-payment of the June 30, 1997 obligation, demanding principal, interest, and penalties.
- Only petitioner answered, alleging full payment (by canceled check), tampering of the June note, and that Mrs. Bognot assumed the debt.
- January 17, 2000: RTC found joint and solidary liability, dismissed payment defense, and ordered petitioner and Rolando to pay ₱500,000 + 5% monthly interest + 10% monthly penalties + ₱50,000 attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals Ruling and Reconsideration
- March 28, 2007: CA affirmed the RTC, holding that petitioner failed to prove payment or dishonor of checks, noting respondent’s practice of canceling and returning checks upon renewal.
- October 15, 2007: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner’s contentions: (a) error in imposing solidary liability; (b) material alteration of promissory note voids liability; (c) debt extinguished by payment (Article 1271 presumption); (d) novation by Mrs. Bognot’s assumption.
- Respondent’s position: petitioner raises factual issues not reviewable under Rule 45; CA correctly found non-payment and no valid novation or note alteration defense.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in holding petitioner solidarily liable with Rolando?
- Is petitioner relieved from liability by virtue of a material alteration in the promissory note?
- Was the obligation extinguished by:
- payment; and
- novation by substitution of debtor?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)