G.R. No. 216120 - Philippine Trust Co. vs. Gabinete

Petitioner Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust Bank), a domestic commercial banking corporation, filed a complaint against respondents Shangrila Realty Corporation, Elisa Tan, and Redentor Gabinete for collection of sum of money.
The complaint stemmed from a renewal of the bills discounting line of P20,000,000.00 granted to Shangrila Realty Corporation. The loan was evidenced by several promissory notes and secured partially by a real estate mortgage.

The loan consisted of four promissory notes with corresponding amounts and interest rates:

PN No. 7626 - P7,200,000.00, 23% per annum, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) on titles registered under Shangrila Realty Corporation;
PN No. 7627 - P6,540,000.00, 25% per annum, clean loan;
PN No. 7628 - P1,200,000.00, 25% per annum, clean loan;
PN No. 7581 - P5,000,000.00, 21% per annum, clean loan secured by a third-party post-dated check.

A Continuing Suretyship Agreement dated August 20, 1997 was executed with Shangrila as borrower and Elisa Tan and Redentor Gabinete as sureties, jointly and severally guaranteeing the punctual payment of all obligations.

Shangrila failed to pay the loans upon maturity, leading Philtrust to demand payment from respondents to no avail.
Philtrust initiated extrajudicial foreclosure on the mortgaged properties; it was the highest bidder with P6,000,000.00, applied to PN No. 7626 but still left a deficiency of P16,015,535.90.
Total outstanding obligation as of February 28, 2006 was P50,425,059.20.

RTC declared respondents in default for failure to answer; Philtrust presented evidence ex parte but complaint was initially dismissed due to failure to present evidence. Motion for reconsideration was granted.
Respondent Gabinete filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default, alleging forgery of his signature on the Continuing Suretyship Agreement, denying participation in loans, and claimed absence of authority of Tan to incur loans. The motion was granted.
NBI document examiner testified a comparative signature analysis showing the questioned signatures on the Suretyship Agreement were not written by the same person as the samples submitted.
RTC ruled in favor of Philtrust ordering respondents to pay the total obligation plus attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed RTC decision, holding that Gabinete was not liable for the loan transactions, finding the signature on the Suretyship Agreement was forged based primarily on NBI findings and evident differences between Gabinete’s shortened signatures and the questioned signature.
Petitioner bank filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the findings of the NBI Document Examiner regarding the alleged forgery of respondent Gabinete’s signature on the Continuing Suretyship Agreement.
Whether the Continuing Suretyship Agreement, as a duly notarized document, enjoys the presumption of regularity that should not be easily rebutted by doubtful evidence.
Whether the petitioner proved the joint and several liability of respondent Gabinete under the loan agreements.
Whether the Supreme Court may review factual findings of lower courts involving signature authenticity and forgery.