ESTANISLAO and AFRICA SINAMBAN, petitioners, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, respondent
G.R. No. 193890 March 11, 2015
The spouses Danilo and Magdalena Manalastas (spouses Manalastas) executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in favor of respondent China Banking
Corporation (Chinabank) over two real estate properties to secure a loan from Chinabank as working capital in their rice milling business. During the next few years, they executed several amendments to the mortgage contract
progressively increasing their credit line secured by the aforesaid mortgage. The spouses Manalastas executed several promissory notes (PNs) in favor of
Chinabank. In two of the PNs, petitioners Estanislao and Africa Sinamban
(spouses Sinamban) signed as co-makers. Chinabank filed a Complaint for sum of money against the spouses Manalastas and the spouses Sinamban
(collectively called the defendants) before the RTC. The complaint alleged that they reneged on their loan obligations under the PNs which the spouses
Manalastas executed in favor of Chinabank on different dates. They averred that they do not recall having executed two PN's and had no participation in the execution of one of the PN. They however admitted that they signed some PN forms as co-makers upon the request of the spouses Manalastas who are their relatives; although they insisted that they derived no money or other benefits from the loans. They denied knowing about the mortgage security provided by the spouses Manalastas, or that the latter defaulted on their loans. They also refused to acknowledge the loan deficiency of P1,758,427.87 on the PNs, insisting that the mortgage collateral was worth more than P10,000,000.00, enough to answer for all the loans, interests and penalties. They also claimed that they were not notified of the auction sale, and denied that they knew about the Certificate of Sale and the Statement of Account and insisted that Chinabank manipulated the foreclosure sale to exclude them therefrom. By way of
25%, plus litigation expenses and costs of suit Issue:
Ruling
if a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Articles 1207 to 1222 of the Civil Code (Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV) on joint and solidary obligations shall be observed. Thus, where there is a
concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, Article 1207 provides that among them, "[t]here is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity." It is settled that when the obligor or obligors undertake to be "jointly and severally" liable, it means that the obligation is solidary. 39 In this case, the spouses Sinamban expressly bound themselves to be jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable with the principal makers of the PNs, the spouses Manalastas Article 1216 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected." Article 1252 42 of the Civil Code does not apply, as urged by the petitioners, because in the said article the situation contemplated is that of a debtor with several debts due, whereas the reverse is true, with each solidary debt imputable to several debtors. ut as the Court has noted, by deducting the auction proceeds from the aggregate amount of the three loans due, Chinabank in effect opted to apply the entire proceeds of the auction simultaneously to all the three loans. This implies that each PN will assume a pro rata portion of the resulting deficiency on the total indebtedness as bears upon each PN's outstanding balance. Contrary to the spouses Sinamban's insistence, none of the three PNs is more onerous than the others to justify applying the proceeds according to Article 1254 of the Civil Code,in relation to Articles 1252 and 1253. 44 Since each loan, represented by each PN, was obtained under a single credit line extended by Chinabank for the working capital requirements of
the spouses Manalastas' rice milling business, which credit line was secured also by a single REM over their properties, then each PN is simultaneously covered by the same mortgage security, the foreclosure of which will also benefit them proportionately. No PN enjoys any priority or preference in payment over the others, with the only difference being that the spouses Sinamban are solidarily liable for the deficiency on two of them.
(Spouses Chin Kong Wong Choi v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 207747,
[March 11, 2015])
Petitioner spouses Chin Kong Wong Choi and Ana O. Chua (Spouses Choi) entered into a Contract to Sell with Primetown Property Group, Inc. (Primetown), The Contract to Sell provided that Spouses Choi agreed to buy condominium iniener Hills Cebu (Kiener) from Primetown for a consideration of P1,151,718.75, with a down payment of P100,000.00 and the remaining balance payable in 40 equal monthly installments of P26,292.97
Rspondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), executed a Memorandum of Agreement and Sale of Receivables and Assignment of Rights and Interests (Agreement) with Primetown. The Agreement provided that Primetown, in
consideration of P748,000,000.00, "assigned, transferred, conveyed and set over unto UCPB all Accounts Receivables accruing from Primetown's Kiener together with assignment of all its rights, titles, interests and participation over the units covered by or arising from the Contracts to Sell from which the Accounts
Receivables have arisen." Included in the assigned accounts receivable was the account of Spouses Choi, who proved payment of one monthly amortization to UCPB. 11 April 2006, the Spouses Choi filed a complaint for refund of money with interest and damages against Primetown and UCPB before the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Field Office No. VI (RFO VI). Spouses Choi alleged that despite their full payment of the purchase price, Primetown failed to finish the construction of Kiener and to deliver the condominium unit to them.
Issue: Whether or not UCPB and Primetown are solidarily liable for damages.
Ruling:
the Agreement between Primetown and UCPB provided that Primetown, in consideration of P748,000,000.00, "assigned, transferred, conveyed and set over unto [UCPB] all Accounts Receivables accruing from Primetown's Kiener together with the assignment of all its rights, titles, interests and
participation over the units covered by or arising from the Contracts to Sell from which the Accounts Receivables have arisen.The Agreement further stipulated that "is sale/assignment is limited to the Receivables accruing to [Primetown] from the buyers of the condominium units in Kiener the rsponding Assignment of Rights and Interests arising from the pertinent Contract to Sell and does not include except for the amount not exceeding 30,000,000.00, Philippine currency, either singly or cumulatively any and all liabilities which [Primetown] may have assumed under the individual Contract to Sell. The Memorandum of Agreement's whereas clauses provided that Primetown desired to settle its obligation with UCPB. Therefore, the tenor of the Agreement is clearly in favor of UCPB. Considering that UCPB is a mere assignee of the rights and receivables under the Agreement, UCPB did not assume the obligations and liabilities of Primetown under its contract to sell with Spouses Choi. Since there is no other ground to hold UCPB solidarily liable with
Primetown and there is no reason to depart from the ratio decidendi in UCPB v. Ho, UCPB is only liable to refund Spouses Choi the amount it indisputably received, which is P26,292.97 based on the evidence presented by Spouses Choi.
Swire Realty Development Corp. v. Yu, G.R. No. 207133,
[March 9, 2015])
Respondent Jayne Yu and petitioner Swire Realty Development Corporation entered into a Contract to Sell covering one residential condominium unit in Makati City for the total contract price of P7,519,371.80, payable in equal
monthly installments. Respondent likewise purchased a parking slot in the same condominium building for P600,000.00.
The rndent paid the full purchase price of P7,519,371.80 for the unit while making a down payment of P20,000.00 for the parking lot. However,
notwithstanding full payment of the contract price, petitioner failed to complete and deliver the subject unit on time. This prompted respondent to file a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (ENCRFO). the HLURB ENCRFO rendered a Decision dismissing respondent's complaint. It ruled that rescission is not permitted for slight or casual breach of the contract but only for such breaches as are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not rescission of the contract is proper in the instant case.
Ruling:
Basic is the rule that the right of rescission of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the reciprocity between them. The breach contemplated in the said
provision is the obligor's failure to comply with an existing obligation. When the obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent upon it, the obligee may seek rescission and, in the absence of any just cause for the court to determine the period of compliance, the court shall decree the rescission. it is evident that the report on the ocular inspection conducted on the subject condominium project and subject unit shows that the amenities under the approved plan have not yet been provided as of May 3, 2002, and that the subject unit has not been
delivered to respondent as of August 28, 2002, which is beyond the period of development of December 1999 under the license to sell. Incontrovertibly, petitioner had incurred delay in the performance of its obligation amounting to breach of contract as it failed to finish and deliver the unit to respondent within the stipulated period. The delay in the completion of the project as well as of the delay in the delivery of the unit are breaches of statutory and contractual
obligations which entitle respondent to rescind the contract, demand a refund and payment of damages.
Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V China Joy v. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 195661 (Resolution),
[March 11, 2015])
Under the Charter Party Agreement over M/V "China Joy," ContiQuincyBunge represented itself as the Charterer of the Vessel, with San Miguel Foods, Inc. as Co-Charterer, and defendant [Samsun] represented itself as the Agent of the Shipowners. Samsun is a foreign corporation not doing business in the
Philippines. On 3 February 1997[,] ATI used its Siwertell Unloader No. 2 to
unload the soybean meal from the Vessel's Hold No. 2. The Siwertell Unloader is a pneumatic vacubator that uses compressed gas to vertically move heavy bulk grain from within the hatch of the ship in order to unload it off the ship. DcHaET The unloading operations were suddenly halted when the head of Unloader No. 2
hit a flat low-carbon or "mild" steel bar measuring around 8 to 10 inches in length, 4 inches in width, and 1 1/4 inch in thickness that was in the middle of the mass of soybean meal. The flat steel bar lodged itself between the vertical screws of Unloader No. 2, causing portions of screw numbers 2 and 3 to crack and be sheared off under the torsional load.
According to the quotation of BMH Marine AB Sweden, the sole manufacturer of Siwertell unloaders, the replacement cost of each screw is US$12,395.00 or US$24,790.00 for the 2 screws plus freight. The labor cost to remove and re-assemble the screws is estimated at US$2,000.00. ATI sent a Note of Protest to the Master of the Vessel for the damages sustained by its unloading equipment as a result of encountering the flat steel bar among the soybean meal. However, the Vessel's Master wrote a note on the Protest stating that it is not responsible for the damage because the metal piece came from the cargo and not from the vessel itself.Defendants argued that since the metal foreign object was found in the middle of the cargo, it could not have come from the bottom of the hatch because the hatch had been inspected and found clean prior to loading.
Defendants further averred that neither could the metal bar have been part of the Vessel that had broken off and fallen into the hatch because tests conducted on the metal piece revealed that said metal bar was not part of the
Vessel.Defendants concluded that the metal bar could only have been already co-mingled with the soybean meal upon loading by ContiQuincyBunge at
loadport, and, therefore, defendants are not liable for the damages sustained by the unloader of ATI.
Issue: Whether or not tere is no contract of carriage between the petitioners and ATI
Ruling:
There is no contract of carriage between ATI, on one hand, and the shipowner, Samsun, ContiQuincyBunge L.L.C., and Inter-Asia, on the other. It likewise bears stressing that the subject of the complaint, from which the instant petition arose, is not the damage caused to the cargo, but to the equipment of an arrastre
operator. Further, ATI's contractual relation is not with the petitioners, but with the consignee and with the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
In Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc., 30 the Court explained that the liabilities of the arrastre operator for losses and damages are set forth in the contract for cargo handling services it had executed with the PPA. Corollarily then, the rights of an arrastre operator to be paid for damages it
sustains from handling cargoes do not likewise spring from contracts of carriage.However, in the instant petition, the contending parties make no
references at all to any provisions in the contract for cargo handling services ATI had executed with the PPA.
ONOFRE V. MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAÑERO, RENING P. PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA, NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO, ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T. RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN R. AVILA, JR. or MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B. GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG, DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS, HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., and RUBEN C. CABELLO, petitioners, vs. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., and SANTIAGO
RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA and REYNALDO MENDOZA, respondents.
G.R. No. 190828. March 16, 2015.
Respondent Times Transportation Co., Inc., (TTCI) is a company engaged in the business of land transportation for passengers and goods serving the Ilocos Region to Metro Manila route. TTCI employed the herein 21 petitioners as bus drivers, conductors, mechanics, welders, security guards and utility personnel.
Sometime in 1995, the rank-and-file employees of TTCI formed a union named as Times Employees Union (TEU) which was later certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit within TTCI. The sale of 25 buses of TTCI, as well as the Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of the buses, were likewise approved and subsequently transferred to respondent Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc., (MENCORP) by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated December 12, 1997. Thereafter, several union members received notices that they were being retrenched effective 30 days from September 16, 1997.
Four years later, several complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal with money claims, damages and attorney's fees were filed against TTCI.
In response, TTCI asserted that the petitioners' cause of action had already been barred by prescription because the complaints were filed only in June 2002 or after almost five years from the date of their dismissal. MENCORP, on the other hand, raised the defense of lack of employer-employee relationship since it never engaged the services of the petitioners when TTCI sold to them its buses and the Certificates of Public Convenience.
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners' complaints for illegal dismissal have already prescribed
Ruling
In the case at bar, October 26, 1997 and November 24, 1997 appear on record to be the dates when the petitioners' employment were terminated by TTCI. The antecedent facts that gave rise to the petitioners' dismissal from employment are not disputed in this case. There is no question about the fact that the petitioners' complaints for unfair labor practice and money claims have already prescribed. The petitioners however argue that their complaints for illegal dismissal were duly filed within the four-year prescriptive period since the period during which their cases were pending should be deducted from the period of prescription. A prudent review of the antecedents of the claim reveals that it has in fact prescribed due to the petitioners' withdrawal of their labor case docketed as
NLRC RAB-I-01-1007. 40 Hence, while the filing of the said case could have interrupted the running of the four-year prescriptive period, the voluntary withdrawal of the petitioners effectively cancelled the tolling of the prescriptive period within which to file their illegal dismissal case, leaving them in exactly the same position as though no labor case had been filed at all. The running of the four-year prescriptive period not having been interrupted by the filing of NLRC RAB-I-01-1007, the petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed in four years after their cessation of employment on October 26, 1997 and November 24, 1997. Consequently, when the petitioners filed their complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, retirement benefits, and damages in 2002, their claim, clearly, had already been barred by prescription.
Sadly, the petitioners have no one but themselves to blame for their own predicament. By their own allegations in their respective complaints, they have barred their remedy and extinguished their right of action.
G.R. No. 167134. March 18, 2015.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondent.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Traders Royal Bank G.R. No. 167134