Case Digest (G.R. No. 171050)
Facts:
Far East Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., Gregoria Pilares Santos and Rhoel P. Santos, G.R. No. 171050, July 04, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner was Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), now Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI); respondents were Tentmakers Group, Inc. (TGI) and its officers Gregoria P. Santos (President) and Rhoel P. Santos (Treasurer). Between July and August 1996 three promissory notes were executed: two 60‑day notes dated July 5, 1996 (Promissory Notes Nos. 2‑038‑965034 and 2‑038‑965040) and one 30‑day note dated August 7, 1996 (Promissory Note No. 2‑038‑965003). The notes bore the signatures of Gregoria and Rhoel; FEBTC alleged the notes represented loans whose proceeds were received by TGI and later became due. Respondents claimed they signed blank promissory notes for future use, denied receiving proceeds, and alleged bank irregularities — notably the absence of a board resolution authorizing the signatories, noncompliance with the bank’s policies and the Manual of Regulations for Banks (MORB), and possible insider wrongdoing by the branch manager, Liza Liwanag.
After demand proved futile, FEBTC filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Makati City, seeking payment of P887,613.37 (inclusive of interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees) and impleading Gregoria and Rhoel as solidary obligors with TGI. Respondents failed to appear at pre‑trial; FEBTC was permitted to present evidence ex parte. The RTC, after trial, found the promissory notes valid and the individual respondents personally and solidarily liable, and rendered judgment for FEBTC (Decision dated June 11, 2001).
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a July 28, 2005 decision, reversed and dismissed FEBTC’s complaint, finding material deficiencies: lack of evidence that the proceeds were received by the respondents or TGI, absence of a board resolution/corporate secretary’s certificate designating authorized signatories specifically for the loan, lack of collateral, and noncompliance with MORB and accepted banking practices — circumstances suggesting possible insider irregularity. FEBTC’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (Resolution dated January 6, 2006).
FEBTC then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the Supreme Court, challenging factual findings of the CA and a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may this Court reexamine and disturb the Court of Appeals’ factual findings and inferences?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that FEBTC failed to comply with the Manual of Regulations for Banks and accepted banking practices, and that there was no evidence the respondents or TGI received the proceeds of the promissory notes?
- Were the individual respondents, Gregoria and Rhoel, personally liable as solidary obligors on the promissory notes despite their ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)