Case Digest (G.R. No. 167082)
Facts:
Teresita I. Buenaventura v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 167082, August 03, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from two promissory notes executed by petitioner Teresita I. Buenaventura in favor of respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company: PN No. 232663 (dated January 20, 1997) for P1,500,000.00 due July 1, 1997 with interest and CESF at 17.532% p.a., and PN No. 232711 (dated April 17, 1997) for P1,500,000.00 due April 7, 1998 with interest and CESF at 14.239% p.a.; both provided for an 18% p.a. penalty on unpaid principal from date of default. Petitioner alleged she had rediscounted three postdated checks issued by her nephew Rene Imperial and that the promissory notes merely secured those rediscounted checks, making her a guarantor; respondent treated the PNs as primary obligations.
When petitioner failed to pay, respondent sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Makati City. The RTC rendered judgment on July 11, 2002 in favor of the bank, directing petitioner to pay P3,553,444.45 plus interest and 10% attorney’s fees. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 23, 2004 the CA affirmed with modification, applying interest at 14.239% p.a. and penalty at 18% p....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner liable under the promissory notes — were the promissory notes simulated or, alternatively, merely guaranties (so that petitioner’s liability would only arise after exhaustion of Imperial’s assets)?
- Is petitioner entitled to recovery on her counterclaims for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation ex...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)