Case Digest (G.R. No. 202947)
Facts:
Petitioner Permanent Savings and Loan Bank filed Civil Case No. 94-71639 in the Regional Trial Court, Manila (Branch 37) to recover P1,000,000.00 from respondent Mariano Velarde under a promissory note, loan release sheet, and disclosure statement dated September 28, 1983, and sent written demands dated July 27, 1988 and February 22, 1994. The trial court granted respondent's demurrer to evidence and dismissed the complaint on January 26, 1996; the Court of Appeals affirmed on October 27, 1999.Issues:
- Did petitioner establish the genuineness and due execution of the loan documents when respondent failed to specifically deny them under oath?
- Was petitioner's action barred by prescription when demands were made in 1988 and 1994?
Ruling:
The Court granted the petition, set aside the RTC and Court of Appeals decisions, and ordered respondent Mariano Velarde to pay P1,000,000.00 with 25% interest and 24% penalty per annum from October 13, 1983, plus 25% attorneys' fees and cos Case Digest (G.R. No. 202947)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Permanent Savings and Loan Bank (Petitioner) filed a complaint for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-71639, seeking recovery of P 1,000,000.00 plus accrued interests and penalties from Mariano Velarde (Respondent).
- The action was based on three documents dated September 28, 1983: a promissory note, a loan release sheet, and a loan disclosure statement (Exhibits A, B, C).
- The promissory note stipulated a loan amount of P 1,000,000.00, maturity on October 13, 1983, interest at 25% per annum, penalty charge of 24% per annum on unpaid amounts, and 25% attorneys fees.
- The bank was under liquidation and was represented at trial by its Deputy Liquidator and Assistant Department Manager of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), Antonio Marquez, who identified the loan documents.
- Petitioner sent a first written demand on July 27, 1988; records show receipt of that demand by respondent on August 5, 1988 (Exhibit D-1).
- Petitioner sent a second written demand on February 22, 1994 (Exhibit E); respondent's counsel replied that the obligation did not actually exist and was covered by contemporaneous or subsequent agreement.
- Respondent's pleadings and pre-trial
- In his Answer, respondent disclaimed liability and alleged that only the signature at the back of the promissory note "seems to be" his and that the P 1,000,000.00 was received by another person; respondent asserted the documents did not express the true intention of the parties.
- Respondent filed a denial under oath repeating that, "assuming that [the promissory note] exists and bears the genuine signature of herein defendant, the same does not bind him" and asserting lack of true intention to be bound.
- The pre-trial formulated the issues, including whether an outstanding loan obligation existed, whether respondent was obligated to pay interest and attorneys fees, genuineness of signature and non-receipt of proceeds, prescription, and respondent's counterclaim.
- Trial proceedings and demurrer to evidence
- On September 6, 1995, petitioner presented Antonio Marquez as its sole witness who identified the promissory note, loan rel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Questions presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner failed to establish the genuineness, due execution and authenticity of the subject loan documents.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's cause of action was already barred by prescription and/or laches.
- Procedural and reviewability question
- Whether factual matters decided below were reviewable under Rule 45, given exceptions allowing r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)