Title
Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 119053
Decision Date
Jan 23, 1997
Atillo sued AMANCOR and Lhuillier for unpaid loans; courts ruled Lhuillier not personally liable, upholding corporate liability principles.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119053)

Loan Agreement and Subsequent Agreements

On August 15, 1985, Amancor, Inc. contracted a loan for P1,000,000.00 from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, guaranteed by the real estate properties owned by petitioner. Subsequently, on June 14, 1988, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between petitioner and Lhuilliier where they both acquired 47% of the shares in Amancor. Due to an urgent capital need, they entered another agreement on February 13, 1989, where Lhuilliier committed to invest additional capital in Amancor. Further, a Supplemental Memorandum of Agreement was executed on March 11, 1989, which included significant stipulations regarding the repayment of the corporation’s loans.

Payment Agreement and Legal Action

Pursuant to the stipulations in the Supplemental Agreement, petitioner assumed liability for P300,000.00 of Amancor’s loan with the requirement that Amancor would pay him interest on this amount at prevailing bank rates. Due to Amancor's failure to repay the remaining balance of P199,888.89, petitioner initiated a legal complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City against both Amancor and Lhuilliier in Civil Case No. CEB-9801.

Pre-Trial Conference and Court Decision

During the pre-trial, all parties, represented by their respective counsels, acknowledged the execution and authenticity of the agreements involved and stipulated that Lhuilliier's personal liability was questioned along with the applicable interest rates. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering Amancor to settle the owed amount with interest, but absolved Lhuilliier of personal liability.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner appealed this ruling, arguing that since Lhuilliier signed the agreements without Amancor's participation, he should be deemed jointly and severally liable with Amancor. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling, finding that the obligation was solely that of Amancor as a legal entity and that Lhuilliier acted merely as its agent.

Judicial Admissions and Legal Standards

Petitioner contended that Lhuilliier had made judicial admissions in his answer, claiming personal liability; however, this assertion was challenged based on Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. This rule states that admissions made during proceedings are conclusive unless proven otherwise due to palpable mistake or absence of such admissions.

Contextual Analysis of Admissions

The court found that petitioner had misrepresented Lhuilliier's admissions by isolating parts of his answer from the broader context. The court indicated that Lhuilliier’s entire answer refuted any claim of personal liability for corporate debts, emphasizing that obligations were to be fulfilled by Amancor. Therefore, the legal principle surrounding judic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.