Case Digest (G.R. No. 200567)
Facts:
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc. and Spouses Cornelio P. Reynoso, Jr. and Leoniza F. Reynoso, G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.From February to October 1997, CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc. obtained multiple loans from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) evidenced by fifteen promissory notes (PNs) having an aggregate principal of Php 12,891,397.78. The PNs were signed by spouses Cornelio P. Reynoso, Jr. and Leoniza F. Reynoso in their corporate capacities. To secure certain advances the spouses executed two deeds of real estate mortgage over several titled properties, and on December 8, 1997 they signed a continuing surety agreement binding themselves solidarily with CPR Promotions up to Php 13,000,000.
After respondents defaulted, MBTC filed petitions for extra-judicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135. Foreclosure sales were held on May 5 and May 6, 1998; MBTC was the highest bidder and received certificates of sale covering the mortgaged properties. MBTC applied the aggregate proceeds (Php 13,614,000) against the obligation but claimed a remaining deficiency of Php 2,628,520.73 (including later interest and costs). When respondents did not pay, MBTC sued for collection (RTC Civil Case No. 99-230).
The Regional Trial Court (Makati City, Branch 59) rendered judgment on October 11, 2007 in favor of MBTC, awarding the claimed deficiency (Php 2,628,520.73 plus stipulated interest and charges) and costs. Respondents moved for reconsideration which was denied (Feb. 7, 2008), then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 28, 2011 (and a denial of reconsideration by Resolution of Feb. 13, 2012), reversed the RTC and ordered MBTC to refund Php 722,602.22 (the alleged excess of bid prices over the debt) with legal interest from March 26, 1999.
MBTC filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari contesting the CA rulings. The parties’ evidence included the PNs, real estate mortgages, continuing surety agreement, petition for extrajudicial foreclosure, certificates of sale and a S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in failing to consider the continuing surety agreement and in ruling that MBTC failed to prove the spouses’ solidarity liability with CPR Promotions?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in misappreciating the promissory notes, mortgages, petition for extrajudicial foreclosure, certificates of sale and Statement of Account, thereby erring in ruling that MBTC failed to prove ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)