Case Digest (G.R. No. 216120)
Facts:
Philippine Trust Company (Also Known as Philtrust Bank) v. Redentor R. Gabinete, Shangrila Realty Corporation and Elisa T. Tan, G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Philtrust Bank (petitioner) granted a renewal of Shangrila Realty Corporation’s bills discounting line, evidenced by several promissory notes (PN Nos. 7626, 7627, 7628 and 7581) dated July–August 1997 with varying interest rates and secured in part by a Real Estate Mortgage (PN No. 7626). A Continuing Suretyship Agreement dated August 20, 1997 named Elisa T. Tan and Redentor R. Gabinete as sureties. Shangrila defaulted on maturity; Philtrust foreclosed extrajudicially, purchased the mortgaged property for P6,000,000 and applied the proceeds to PN No. 7626, leaving a large deficiency. By February 28, 2006 Philtrust claimed a total outstanding obligation of P50,425,059.20 (inclusive of interest) and invoked the attorney’s-fee stipulation in the notes.
Philtrust filed a complaint for collection on March 8, 2006. After summons by publication, the RTC declared defendants in default (June 26, 2007), allowed Philtrust to present evidence ex parte, then dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to present evidence (Jan. 4, 2008); that dismissal was reconsidered (Feb. 29, 2008) and Philtrust thereafter presented witnesses and formally offered evidence (April 10, 2008). Gabinete moved to lift the order of default (filed Apr. 18, 2005), which the RTC granted (June 19, 2008); he then cross‑examined Philtrust’s witnesses and denied signing or participating in the loan transactions, alleging forgery of his signature on the Continuing Suretyship Agreement.
Gabinete requested an NBI questioned‑document analysis (motion filed Mar. 3, 2009; order Mar. 11, 2009). The NBI examiner, Efren Flores, testified that the questioned signature and the submitted specimen signatures were not written by the same person. After Gabinete submitted his formal offer of evidence, the RTC rendered judgment for Philtrust on April 20, 2010, ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay P64,153,827.02 (computed as of Mar. 26, 2008), attorney’s fees of 10% and costs.
Gabinete appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated March 25, 2014, reversed in part: it gave weight to the NBI examiner’s finding of forgery, concluded the RTC erred in disregarding that finding and in not independently comparing signatures, and ruled that Gabinete was not liable for the loan transactions (though the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to Gabinete’s liability). Philtrust ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in crediting the NBI document examiner and finding that Gabinete’s signature on the Continuing Suretyship Agreement was forged (a question principally of fact)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in disregarding the presumption of regularity accorded to the notarized Continuing Suretyship Agreement?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in relieving Gabinete of liability on the basis of the foregoing findings and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)