Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7969) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Alejandro v. Tankeh, G.R. No. 171428, decided on November 11, 2013 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner Dr. Alejandro V. Tankeh challenged several loan and mortgage documents he had signed on May 12, 1981 to assist his younger brother Ruperto V. Tankeh’s new venture, Sterling Shipping Lines, Inc. (SSLI). Ruperto had obtained a US $3.5 million loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to partially finance the acquisition of the ocean-going vessel M/V Golden Lilac, later renamed Sterling Ace. DBP required, among other things, that Dr. Alejandro, Ruperto, SSLI, Vicente Arenas and Jose Marie Vargas become jointly and severally liable, that a first mortgage over the vessel be executed, that future earnings be assigned to DBP, and that DBP hold at least 67% of the voting shares. Although Dr. Alejandro was allegedly promised 1,000 free shares worth ₱1,000,000 and a key management role, he later discovered he was never involved in board meetings or company operatio Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7969) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Loan and Mortgage Transactions
- In 1981, Ruperto V. Tankeh (president of Sterling Shipping Lines, Inc. or SSLI) applied for a US$3.5 million loan from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to finance purchase of an ocean‐going vessel (M/V Golden Lilac, later M/V Sterling Ace).
- Conditions imposed by DBP:
- First mortgage over the vessel.
- Joint and several liability of Ruperto, his brother Alejandro V. Tankeh (petitioner), Jose Marie Vargas, SSLI and Vicente Arenas for the loan.
- Assignment of future earnings and charter proceeds of the vessel to DBP.
- Assignment of at least 67% of SSLI’s voting shares to DBP as long as the loan existed.
- Petitioner’s Involvement
- Alejandro was told by Ruperto in 1980 that he would receive 1,000 shares (₱1 million) in SSLI and serve as director and vice‐president.
- On May 12, 1981, Alejandro signed an Assignment of Shares; in December 1981 he signed the promissory note last among the signatories.
- Alejandro later claimed he never invested capital nor participated in SSLI affairs and was introduced only once to DBP‐nominated directors.
- On June 15, 1983, Alejandro wrote Ruperto severing ties and requested release from all liabilities and notice to DBP.
- Sale of Vessel and Subsequent Events
- On January 29, 1987, DBP sold the M/V Sterling Ace in Singapore for US$350,000; resale price was double the next day.
- Alejandro protested the sale as irregular and continued bound by the promissory note.
- Alejandro filed multiple complaints (1987–1991) seeking annulment of the note and mortgage, alleging Ruperto’s fraud and DBP’s negligence; impleaded SSLI, Arenas, DBP, and Asset Privatization Trust (APT, later Privatization and Management Office).
- Judicial Proceedings
- RTC Manila (Jan 4, 1996) annulled the promissory note and mortgage “insofar as” they bound Alejandro, finding causal fraud by Ruperto, and denied all counterclaims and damage claims.
- CA Third Division (Oct 25, 2005) reversed: held no fraud proved against Ruperto or any other respondent; dismissed Alejandro’s complaints. Reconsideration denied (Feb 9, 2006).
- Alejandro filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari (received March 20, 2006) before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether Alejandro’s remedy is by Rule 45 Petition for Review or by Rule 65 Certiorari.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether Ruperto V. Tankeh committed fraud (“dolo causante” or “dolo incidente”) inducing Alejandro to sign the promissory note.
- Whether fraud existed against DBP, SSLI, Arenas, or APT.
- Whether the CA erred in disregarding the RTC’s findings of fact.
- Whether Alejandro is entitled to moral and attorney’s or exemplary damages.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)