Case Digest (G.R. No. 238258)
Facts:
On November 19, 1997, Landbank of the Philippines (LBP), the respondent, extended an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement amounting to ₱250,000,000.00 to Duty Paid Import Co. Inc. (DPICI), one of the petitioners. To secure this loan, a Comprehensive Surety Agreement was executed by petitioners Ramon P. Jacinto, Rajah Broadcasting Network, Inc., and RJ Music City, represented by Jaime J. Colayco and Ma. Belen B. Quejano (collectively, Jacinto et al.). Under this agreement, Jacinto et al. jointly and severally bound themselves to pay LBP should DPICI fail to fulfill its loan obligations. Between July 24, 1997 and August 4, 1998, several promissory notes totaling the loan amount were executed in favor of LBP. As additional security for a ₱10,000,000.00 portion of the loan, a real estate mortgage over a condominium unit was executed by Colayco in his capacity as Vice President of RJ Holdings, Inc. DPICI defaulted on its obligations, leading LBP to foreclose the mortgage in December 1998 a
Case Digest (G.R. No. 238258)
Facts:
On November 19, 1997, Landbank of the Philippines (LBP) extended an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement for P250,000,000 to Duty Paid Import Co. Inc. (DPICI), and petitioners Ramon P. Jacinto, Rajah Broadcasting Network, Inc., and RJ Music City executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement jointly and severally guaranteeing DPICI’s obligations; various promissory notes were issued and a real estate mortgage was foreclosed yielding insufficient proceeds and a deficiency. LBP sued petitioners for collection; the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment ordering petitioners to pay P166,853,078.57 plus interest and attorney’s fees, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, prompting this Rule 45 petition.Issues:
- Did LBP have a cause of action against the petitioners?
- Was the action prematurely filed because of an alleged agreement to restructure DPICI’s loan?
- Are petitioners solidarily liable as sureties under the Comprehensive Surety Agreement?
- Did the Asian financial crisis of 1997 constitute *force majeure* excusing petitioners’ nonperformance?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)