Case Summary (G.R. No. 131013)
Applicable Law
The ruling is premised on the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision from the Court of Appeals was rendered after 1990.
Summary of Facts
The case originated when Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company filed a complaint against the petitioners for the sum of money, alleging failed obligations arising from eight causes of action pertaining to the delivery and shipment of merchandise. The bank sought a preliminary attachment against the petitioners, claiming they held the merchandise in trust but failed to account for them.
The petitioners responded with a "Joint Answer with Counterclaim," wherein they denied liability, contending that the individual defendants (Borbon and Geronimo) did not sign the letters of credit in their personal capacities and had no direct obligation to repay the bank. They further argued that the contracts at issue were sham and should be declared void.
The trial court initially dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim on February 10, 1992, leading Metropolitan Bank to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
On June 13, 1997, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's ruling, finding the petitioners liable for the monetary obligation under the letters of credit, stating that they were liable jointly and severally for amounts owed, which included interest and attorney fees.
Request for Reconsideration
Subsequent to the adverse ruling, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on October 24, 1997, leading to the current appeal before the higher court.
Main Legal Issue
The central issue presented is whether the individual petitioners can be held personally liable for the corporation's obligations despite their claim that they did not sign the letters of credit in a personal capacity.
Court's Ruling
The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the petitioners had indeed signed documents that made them jointly and severally liable for the corporate obligations. The court indicated that individuals who sign impor
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131013)
The Case
- This case involves a petition to annul the decision made by the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals ordered petitioners, Blade International Marketing Corporation, along with Evan J. Borbon, Edgar J. Borbon, and Marcial Geronimo, to pay jointly and severally their total obligation to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company.
- The payment includes interest, penalty charges, and attorney's fees.
The Facts
- The complaint for "Sum of Money" was initiated by Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, including a request for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against the petitioners.
- The complaint detailed eight causes of action regarding the delivery and shipment of merchandise and tools.
- The bank alleged that it paid suppliers via letters of credit against bills of exchange and that these goods were delivered in trust.
- Petitioners, as entrustees, were required to hold the goods and their proceeds for payment of their obligations to the bank.
- The bank claimed that the petitioners failed to account for and turn over the proceeds from the sale of the merchandise.
- On November 20, 1987, the petitioners filed a "Joint Answer with Counterclaim," denying the material facts of the complaint and asserting special and aff