Case Digest (G.R. No. 96635)
Facts:
United Alloy Philippines Corporation, Spouses David C. Chua and Luten Chua v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 175949, January 30, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On December 18, 2000, petitioner United Alloy Philippines Corporation (UNIALLOY) obtained a PhP50,000,000 credit accommodation from respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) evidenced by a Credit Agreement. As part of the transaction UNIALLOY executed a Surety Agreement (dated December 18, 2000) signed by UNIALLOY’s Chairman Jakob Van Der Sluis, President David Chua and his spouse Luten Chua (the Spouses Chua), and one Yang Kim Eng; and six promissory notes were later issued in favor of UCPB. UNIALLOY also entered a lease-purchase agreement with UCPB as additional consideration.
After UNIALLOY defaulted, UCPB filed a collection action for sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment against UNIALLOY, the Spouses Chua, Yang and Van Der Sluis before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, docketed Civil Case No. 01-1332. UCPB also rescinded the lease-purchase contract. On the same date UNIALLOY filed a complaint for annulment and/or reformation of contract (and ancillary injunctive relief) against UCPB, UCPB Vice-President Robert Chua and Van Der Sluis before the RTC of Cagayan de Oro (CDO), docketed Civil Case No. 2001-219, alleging fraud and seeking annulment of three promissory notes.
UNIALLOY moved to dismiss the Makati collection case for litis pendentia and forum shopping; the RTC of Makati denied the motion. UCPB moved to dismiss UNIALLOY’s CDO complaint for improper venue, forum shopping and harassment; the RTC of CDO dismissed UNIALLOY’s complaint on September 13, 2001 and ordered turnover of the disputed property. UNIALLOY sought certiorari and mandamus from the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA G.R. SP No. 67079), and the CA on February 18, 2002 granted a writ of preliminary injunction; UCPB elevated that CA resolution to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 152238, and this Court on March 18, 2002 restrained enforcement of the CA resolution. On January 28, 2005 this Court denied UCPB’s petition in G.R. No. 152238 and affirmed the CA’s grant of preliminary injunction.
While those collateral proceedings were pending, UNIALLOY filed an omnibus motion in Makati to suspend proceedings; the RTC denied it (Aug. 19, 2002). The RTC of Makati rendered judgment in favor of UCPB on June 17, 2003, awarding US$435,494.44, PhP26,940,950.80, attorney’s fees and costs; UNIALLOY appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the Makati RTC on September 21, 2006 (CA-G.R. CV No. 81079), and denied UNIALLOY’s motion for reconsideration on December 11, 2006. UNIALLOY separately pursued certiorari from the CA’s dismissal of its CDO action; the CA on August 17, 2007 affirmed the RTC of CDO, and UNIALLOY’s subsequent petition to this Court in G.R. No. 179257 was denied on November 23, 2015 (final per Entry of Judgment January 20, 2016).
UNIALLOY then filed this petition for review on certiorari ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in refusing to resolve petitioners’ procedural motions (motion to dismiss and omnibus motion to suspend proceedings) premised on the pendency of the Cagayan de Oro action?
- Are petitioners liable to pay UCPB the sums awarded by the RTC of Makati in Civil Case No. 01-1332?
- Were the interest rates and charges imposed by UCPB unconscionable or otherwis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)