Case Digest (G.R. No. 167082)
Facts:
In Teresita I. Buenaventura v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (G.R. No. 167082, May 29, 2017), petitioner Teresita I. Buenaventura executed two Promissory Notes (PN Nos. 232663 and 232711) in favor of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) in Makati City on January 20, 1997 and April 17, 1997 for ₱1,500,000.00 each. The first note matured on July 1, 1997 with an interest and credit evaluation and supervision fee (CESF) rate of 17.532% p.a., while the second matured on April 7, 1998 with an interest and CESF rate of 14.239% p.a. Both instruments provided for an 18% p.a. penalty on unpaid principal from the date of default. Buenaventura claimed she merely guaranteed three postdated checks, totaling ₱2,897,000.00, drawn by her nephew Rene Imperial and rediscounted with Metrobank’s Timog Branch, insisting her signature on the notes was collateral to secure those checks. Metrobank nevertheless sought recovery of ₱2,061,208.08 and ₱1,492,236.37, plus interest, penalties,Case Digest (G.R. No. 167082)
Facts:
- Promissory Notes and Terms
- On January 20, 1997, petitioner executed Promissory Note No. 232663 in the principal amount of ₱1,200,000.00, payable July 1, 1997, with interest and CESF at 17.532% per annum and 18% per annum penalty on unpaid principal from default.
- On April 17, 1997, she executed Promissory Note No. 232711 in the principal amount of ₱1,500,000.00, payable April 7, 1998, with interest and CESF at 14.239% per annum and 18% per annum penalty on unpaid principal from default.
- Default and Bank Action
- As of July 15, 1998, inclusive of interest and penalties, the unpaid balances were ₱1,492,236.37 on PN 232663 and ₱2,061,208.08 on PN 232711.
- Respondent‐bank filed suit in RTC, Makati City (Branch 61) for recovery of unpaid principal, interest, penalties and attorney’s fees.
- Petitioner’s Defense and Procedural History
- Petitioner claimed she was a guarantor for postdated checks of her nephew, not a borrower, and that the PNs were security only, simulated or fictitious, and that bank must exhaust nephew’s assets first.
- RTC (July 11, 2002) found petitioner liable for ₱3,553,444.45 plus interest and penalties from July 15, 1998 and 10% attorney’s fees.
- CA (April 23, 2004) affirmed with modification: imposed 14.239% interest and 18% penalty from July 15, 1998 on ₱3,553,444.45 plus 10% attorney’s fees; motion for reconsideration denied (February 9, 2005).
- Petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court followed.
Issues:
- Whether the promissory notes are valid obligations of petitioner, or whether they are simulated, fictitious, or merely guaranties.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to counterclaims for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)