Title
Mendoza vs. Banco Real Development Bank
Case
G.R. No. 140923
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2005
TVI's officers transferred mortgaged assets to FGT without bank consent, concealing their location, leading to personal liability for the loan under the alter ego doctrine.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140923)

Background of the Loan Agreement

On August 7, 1985, the Board of Directors of TVI authorized its President, Edgardo A. Yotoko, or its General Manager, Manuel M. Mendoza, to secure a loan from Banco Real Development Bank. Following this authorization, on September 11, 1985, the bank provided a loan of P500,000 to TVI. Mendoza established a promissory note and a chattel mortgage over 195 units of Beta video machines owned by TVI to collateralize the loan.

Corporate Changes and Foreclosure Proceedings

Subsequent to the loan agreement, TVI, along with other video firms, organized a new corporation named FGT Video Network Inc. on October 3, 1986. Following TVI's failure to meet its loan obligations upon maturity, the bank initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on January 26, 1987. A Sheriff's Report revealed that TVI was no longer operational at its registered address, and Mendoza denied knowledge of the location of the mortgaged machines.

Payment Proposals and Bank Demands

Amidst the ongoing foreclosure proceedings, Mendoza wrote to the bank on February 19, 1987, requesting additional time to fulfill the loan obligations and proposed a new repayment term. However, the bank received no payments, and Mendoza remained non-communicative regarding the whereabouts of the mortgaged equipment.

NBI Seizure of Assets

In a related case involving the NBI, a search warrant led to the confiscation of 638 machines and equipment, including the originally mortgaged Beta machines, from FGT's premises. Despite petitioners’ efforts to reclaim the machines, the Regional Trial Court issued temporary restraints, and they remained under NBI custody pending resolution of legal disputes.

Legal Actions and Trial Court Decision

On July 13, 1990, the bank filed a complaint for collection against TVI, FGT, and the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the loan was solely a corporate obligation of TVI. However, the trial court found them personally liable, ruling that TVI was essentially an alter ego of the petitioners. The court underscored their improper transfer of mortgaged assets without the bank's consent and their failure to disclose the whereabouts of these assets during foreclosure proceedings.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the petitioners were l

...continue reading

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