Title
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 200567
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2015
MBTC failed to prove deficiency balance post-foreclosure; SC deleted CA’s refund award due to respondents’ belated counterclaim. Burden of proof unfulfilled.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 106231)

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • Petitioner: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC).
    • Respondents: CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc. (CPR Promotions) and Spouses Cornelio P. Reynoso, Jr. and Leoniza F. Reynoso (Spouses Reynoso).
  • Loan Instruments
    • From February to October 1997, CPR Promotions obtained fifteen (15) promissory notes signed by the Spouses Reynoso as corporate officers, totaling ₱12,891,397.78 in principal.
    • To secure these loans, the Spouses Reynoso executed:
      • A mortgage on TCT No. 624835 (₱6,500,000) on February 2, 1996.
      • A mortgage on TCT Nos. 565381, 263421, 274682 (₱2,500,000) on July 18, 1996.
  • Foreclosure Proceedings
    • Upon default, MBTC filed an extrajudicial foreclosure petition under Act No. 3135 on March 6, 1998, alleging a total amount due of ₱11,216,783.99 as of February 10, 1998.
    • Public auctions were held May 5 (₱10,374,000 bid) and May 6 (₱3,240,000 bid) 1998, yielding sale proceeds of ₱13,614,000. MBTC claimed a deficiency of ₱2,628,520.73 plus interest and foreclosure expenses.
  • Trial and Appellate Decisions
    • RTC, Makati City (Oct. 11, 2007): Held respondents liable for ₱2,628,520.73 plus stipulated interest and penalties; awarded costs.
    • CA, Branch 59 (Sept. 28, 2011): Reversed; ordered MBTC to refund respondents ₱722,602.22 (excess proceeds) with 6% legal interest from March 26, 1999. Reconsideration denied Feb. 13, 2012.

Issues:

  • Liability under Surety Agreement
    • Did the CA abuse its discretion by disregarding the continuing surety agreement and ruling the Spouses Reynoso are not solidarily liable with CPR Promotions?
  • Deficiency and Excess Calculations
    • Did the CA misappreciate the promissory notes, mortgages, foreclosure petition, certificates of sale, and statement of account, thus erroneously finding no deficiency and ordering a refund of ₱722,602.22?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.