copy of 1170 international corp bank

8/22/2019 Copy of 1170 International Corp Bank

1/10

International CorporateBank vs. Gueco

21062010International Corporate Bank vs. Gueco351 SCRA 516

Facts:

Responent Gueco spouses o!taine a loan "ro# petitioner International Corporate Bank $no%&nion Bank o" '(ilippines) to purc(ase a car * +issan Sentra 1,-, #oel.

In consieration spouses e/ecute pro#issor note %(ic( %ere paa!le in #ont(linstall#ent c(attel #ortae over t(e car.

(e spouses e"aulte pa#ent. 4r. Gueco (a a #eetin t(e unpai install#ent o" '1-k%as reuce to '150k. o%ever t(e car %as etaine ! t(e !ank.

7(en 4r. Gueco elivere t(e #aner8s c(eck o" '150k t(e car %as not release !ecause o"(is re"usal to sin t(e 9oint otion to 4is#iss.

(e !ank insiste t(at t(e 94 is a stanar operatin proceure to e""ect a co#pro#ise topreclue "uture "ilin o" clai#s or suits "or a#aes.

Gueco spouses "ile an action aainst t(e !ank "or "rau "ailin to in"or# t(e# rearin 94urin t(e #eetin "or not releasin t(e car i" t(e o not sin t(e sai #otion.

Issue:

7;+ t(e !ank %as uilt o" "rau< +;

el:

Frau (as !een e"ine as t(e eli!erate intention to cause a#ae or pre=uice. It is t(evoluntar e/ecution o" a %ron"ul act or a %ill"ul o#ission kno%in an intenin t(e e""ects%(ic( naturall an necessaril arise "ro# suc( act or o#ission. t(e "rau re"erre to in Article11>0 o" t(e Civil Coe is t(e eli!erate an intentional evasion o" t(e nor#al "ul"ill#ent o"o!liation.

7e "ail to see (o% t(e act o" t(e petitioner !ank in re?uirin t(e responent to sin t(e =oint#otion to is#iss coul constitute as "rau.

(e 94 cannot in an %a (ave pre=uice 4r. Gueco. (e #otion to is#iss %as in "act also

"or t(e !ene"it o" 4r. Gueco as t(e case "ile ! petitioner aainst it !e"ore t(e lo%er court%oul !e is#isse %it( pre=uice. (e %(ole point o" t(e parties enterin into t(eco#pro#ise aree#ent %as in orer t(at 4r. Gueco %oul pa (is outstanin account an inreturn petitioner %oul return t(e car an rop t(e case "or #one an replevin !e"ore t(eetropolitan rial Court. (e =oint #otion to is#iss %as !ut a natural conse?uence o" t(eco#pro#ise aree#ent an si#pl state t(at 4r. Gueco (a "ull settle (is o!liation(ence t(e is#issal o" t(e case. 'etitioner8s act o" re?uirin 4r. Gueco to sin t(e =oint #otionto is#iss cannot !e sai to !e a eli!erate atte#pt on t(e part o" petitioner to renee on t(eco#pro#ise aree#ent o" t(e parties.


2/10

(e la% presu#es oo "ait(. 4r. Gueco "aile to present an iota o" evience to overco#e t(ispresu#ption. In "act t(e act o" petitioner !ank in lo%erin t(e e!t o" 4r. Gueco "ro#'1-000.00 to '150000.00 is inicative o" its oo "ait( an sincere esire to settle t(e case.I" responent i su""er an a#ae as a result o" t(e %it((olin o" (is car ! petitioner (e(as onl (i#sel" to !la#e. +ecessaril t(e clai# "or e/e#plar a#aes #ust "ail. In no %a#a t(e conuct o" petitioner !e c(aracteri@e as %anton "rauulent reckless oppressive or#alevolent.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 141968. February 12, 2001]

THE INTERNATIONAL CORORATE !AN" #$o% &NION !AN"

OF THE HILIINE'(,petitioner, vs.''. FRANCI' '.

G&ECO a$) *A. L&+ E. G&ECO, respondents.

E C I ' I O N

"A&NAN,J.-

The respondents Gueco Spouses obtained a loan from petitioner

International Corporate Bank no! "nion Bank of the #hilippines$ to purchase

a car % a Nissan Sentra &'(( )DR* &+,+ -odel. In consideration thereof* the

Spouses e/ecuted promissor0 notes !hich !ere pa0able in monthl0

installments and chattel mort1a1e o2er the car to ser2e as securit0 for the notes.

The Spouses defaulted in pa0ment of installments. Conse3uentl0* the Bank

filed on 4u1ust 5* &++6 a ci2il action docketed as Ci2il Case No. '6,7+6 for

8Sum of -one0 !ith #ra0er for a 9rit of Reple2in: ;&s compound.

On 4u1ust =,* &++6* Dr. Gueco !ent to the bank and talked !ith its

4dministrati2e Support* 4uto @oansACredit Card Collection ?ead* efferson

Ri2era. The ne1otiations resulted in the further reduction of the outstandin1

loan to #&6(*(((.((.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/141968.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/141968.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/141968.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/141968.htm#_edn1


3/10

On 4u1ust =+* &++6* Dr. Gueco deli2ered a mana1er>s check in the amount

of #&6(*(((.(( but the car !as not released because of his refusal to si1n the

oint -otion to Dismiss. It is the contention of the Gueco spouses and their

counsel that Dr. Gueco need not si1n the motion for oint dismissal considerin1

that the0 had not 0et filed their 4ns!er. #etitioner* ho!e2er* insisted that the

oint motion to dismiss is standard operatin1 procedure in their bank to effect a

compromise and to preclude future filin1 of claims* counterclaims or suits for

dama1es.

4fter se2eral demand letters and meetin1s !ith bank representati2es* the

respondents Gueco spouses initiated a ci2il action for dama1es before the

-etropolitan Trial Court of ueEon Cit0* Branch . The -etropolitan Trial

Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. ;s check % the proceeds of !hich ha2e

lon1 been under the control of the issuin1 bank in fa2or of the appellee since its

issuance* !hereas the funds ha2e lon1 been paid b0 appellants to secure said

-ana1er>s Check* o2er !hich appellants ha2e no controlH

=. to pa0 the appellants the sum of #6(*(((.(( as moral dama1esH #=6*(((.(( as

e/emplar0 dama1es* and #=6*(((.(( as attorne0>s fees* and

. to pa0 the cost of suit.

In other respect* the decision of the -etropolitan Trial Court Branch is

hereb0 4FFIR-D.;) Rollo* p. &6$

The Court has noted* ho!e2er* that the trial court* in its findin1s of facts*

clearl0 indicated that the a1reement of the parties on 4u1ust =,* &++6 !as

merel0 for the lo!erin1 of the price* hence 7


6/10

/// On 4u1ust =,* &++6* bank representati2e efferson Ri2era and

plaintiff entered into an oral compromise a1reement* !hereb0 the

ori1inal claim of the bank of #&,)*+,6.(+ !as reduced to #&6(*(((.((

and that upon pa0ment of !hich* plaintiff !as informed that the subect

motor 2ehicle !ould be released to him.> Rollo* p. &=$

The lo!er court* on the other hand* e/pressl0 made a findin1 that petitioner

failed to include the aforesaid si1nin1 of the oint -otion to Dismiss as part of

the a1reement. In dismissin1 petitioner>s claim* the lo!er court declared* thus

If it is true* as the appellees alle1e* that the si1nin1 of the oint motion !as a

conditionsine qua nonfor the reduction of the appellants> obli1ation* it is onl0

reasonable and lo1ical to assume that the oint motion should ha2e been sho!n

to Dr. Gueco in the 4u1ust =,* &++6 meetin1. 9h0 Dr. Gueco !as not 1i2en a

cop0 of the oint motion that da0 of 4u1ust =,* &++6* for his famil0 or le1al

counsel to see to be brou1ht si1ned* to1ether !ith the #&6(*(((.(( inmana1er>s check form to be submitted on the follo!in1 da0 on 4u1ust =+*

&++6 sic$ ;Is

comprehension. The appellees !ould like this Court to belie2e that Dr. Gueco

!as informed b0 -r. Ri2era of the bank re3uirement of si1nin1 the oint

motion on 4u1ust =,* &++6 but he did not bother to sho! a cop0 thereof to his

famil0 or le1al counsel that da0 4u1ust =,* &++6. This part of the theor0 of

appellee is too complicated for an0 simple oral a1reement. The idea of a oint

-otion to Dismiss bein1 si1ned as a condition to the pushin1 throu1h a deal

surfaced onl0 on 4u1ust =+* &++6.

This Court is not con2inced b0 the appellees> posturin1. Such claim rests on

too slender a frame* bein1 inconsistent !ith human e/perience. Considerin1

the effect of the si1nin1 of the oint -otion to Dismiss on the appellants>

substanti2e ri1ht* it is more in accord !ith human e/perience to e/pect Dr.

Gueco* upon bein1 sho!n the oint -otion to Dismiss* to refuse to pa0 the

-ana1er>s Check and for the bank to refuse to accept the mana1erJs

check. The onl0 lo1ical e/planation for this inaction is that Dr. Gueco !as not

sho!n the oint -otion to Dismiss in the meetin1 of 4u1ust =,* &++6*

bolsterin1 his claim that its si1nin1 !as ne2er put into consideration in reachin1a compromise.> ///.;+ 9hen petitioner refused to

release the car despite respondentJs tender of pa0ment in the form of a

mana1erJs check* the former intentionall0 e2aded its obli1ation and thereb0

became liable for moral and e/emplar0 dama1es* as !ell as attorne0>s fees.;&(s check in the latter>s possession*

after!hich* petitioner is to return the subect motor 2ehicle in 1ood !orkin1

condition.

'O ORERE.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago,

JJ., concur.

copy of 1170 international corp bank

Documents