Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Case Digest: Planters Development Bank vs. Lopez, 708 SCRA 48

Planters Development Bank vs. Lopez, 708 SCRA 481

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

In 1983, the spouses Emesto and Florentina Lopez applied for and obtained a real estate loan in the amount of P3M from PDB to finance the construction of a four-story concrete dormitory building, payable for 14 years and shall bear a monetary interest at 21% p.a. Furthermore, partial drawdowns on the loan shall be based on project completion and shall be allowed upon submission of job accomplishment reports by the project engineer. To secure the payment of the loan, the spouses Lopez mortgaged a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16233.

The spouses entered into several amendments of the original loan agreement with the bank with the most recent one dated in August 1984 where PDB unilaterally increased the interest rate to 32% p.a. The spouses Lopez failed to avail the full amount of the loan because PDB refused to release the remaining amount of ₱700K.

In October 1984, the spouses Lopez filed against Planters Bank complaint for rescission of the loan agreements and for damages with the RTC of Makati City. They alleged that they could not continue the construction of the dormitory building because Planters Bank had refused to release the remaining loan balance.

In defense, Planters Bank argued that the spouses Lopez had no cause of action and that the refusal to release the loan was the result of the spouses Lopez’s violations of the loan agreement, namely: (1) non-submission of the accomplishment reports; and (2) construction of a six-story building. As a counterclaim, Planters Bank prayed for the payment of the overdue released loan in the amount of ₱3.5M, with interest and damages.

In 1984, Planters Bank foreclosed the mortgaged properties in favor of third parties after the spouses Lopez defaulted on their loan.

The spouses Lopez died. Compulsory heirs Joseph Wilfred, Joseph Gilbert and Marlyn, all surnamed Joven (respondents) substituted for the deceased Florentina Lopez. CA reversed the RTC ruling. It held that Planters Bank’s refusal to release the loan was a substantial breach of the contract. It found that the spouses Lopez submitted accomplishment reports. It gave weight to Engineer Edgard Fianza’s testimony that he prepared accomplishment reports prior to the release of the funds. Moreover, Planters Bank’s appraisal department head, Renato Marayag, testified that accomplishment reports were a prerequisite for the release of the loan.

ISSUE

Whether or not the spouses Lopez violated the loan agreement through failure to submit accomplishment reports and that spouses Lopez deviated from the construction project.  

RULING

No.

Under the law, the concurrence of the following requisites is necessary for the principle of equitable estoppel to apply: (a) conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (b) intent, or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon, or at least influenced by the other party; and (c) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the actual facts.

In this case, Planters Bank is estopped from opposing the spouses Lopez's construction of a six-storey building. Inaction or silence may under some circumstances amount to misrepresentation, so as to raise an equitable estoppel. The principle of equitable estoppel prevents PDB from raising the spouses Lopez's violation of the loan agreement. Planters Bank was already aware that the spouses Lopez were building six floors as early as September 30, 1983. Records disclose that Planters Bank also conducted a series of ocular inspections. Despite such knowledge, the bank kept silent on the violation of the loan agreement as Planters Bank continued to release the loan in partial amounts to the spouses Lopez. As the CA correctly pointed out, Planters Bank only raised this argument during trial--a move that highly appears to be an afterthought.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...