Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    PNB Vs CA SpecPro Case Digest R86

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    The Philippine National Bank filed a collection case against Fabar Inc. and several individuals for unpaid loans. One of the individuals, Manuel Barredo, died while the case was pending. The trial court dismissed the entire case, interpreting Section 6 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court to require filing a separate claim against the deceased's estate. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 Rule 86 does not prohibit proceeding against surviving debtors. The creditor has the right under the Civil Code to pursue any of the solidary debtors. Dismissing the entire case against the surviving debtors would improperly deprive the creditor of substantive rights merely for procedural reasons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNB Vs CA SpecPro Case Digest R86

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    133 views1 page
    The Philippine National Bank filed a collection case against Fabar Inc. and several individuals for unpaid loans. One of the individuals, Manuel Barredo, died while the case was pending. The trial court dismissed the entire case, interpreting Section 6 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court to require filing a separate claim against the deceased's estate. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 Rule 86 does not prohibit proceeding against surviving debtors. The creditor has the right under the Civil Code to pursue any of the solidary debtors. Dismissing the entire case against the surviving debtors would improperly deprive the creditor of substantive rights merely for procedural reasons.

    Original Description:

    Philippine National Bank vs Court of Appeals

    Original Title

    PNB vs CA SpecPro Case Digest R86

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine National Bank filed a collection case against Fabar Inc. and several individuals for unpaid loans. One of the individuals, Manuel Barredo, died while the case was pending. The trial court dismissed the entire case, interpreting Section 6 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court to require filing a separate claim against the deceased's estate. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 Rule 86 does not prohibit proceeding against surviving debtors. The creditor has the right under the Civil Code to pursue any of the solidary debtors. Dismissing the entire case against the surviving debtors would improperly deprive the creditor of substantive rights merely for procedural reasons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    133 views1 page

    PNB Vs CA SpecPro Case Digest R86

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    The Philippine National Bank filed a collection case against Fabar Inc. and several individuals for unpaid loans. One of the individuals, Manuel Barredo, died while the case was pending. The trial court dismissed the entire case, interpreting Section 6 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court to require filing a separate claim against the deceased's estate. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 Rule 86 does not prohibit proceeding against surviving debtors. The creditor has the right under the Civil Code to pursue any of the solidary debtors. Dismissing the entire case against the surviving debtors would improperly deprive the creditor of substantive rights merely for procedural reasons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    GR # 46095; November 23, 1977; J. Makasiar
    SpecPro Aspect: [S6, R86] This provision does not categorically state that a creditor
    must file his collection suit against the estate of a deceased debtor if the decedent died
    while the suit was pending, even if there are surviving debtors in connection with the
    original obligation to be settled.
    FACTS: PNB (Petitioner) granted to Fabar Inc. (Respondent) different kinds of credit
    accommodations and advancements (discount line, overdrafts, insurance premiums,
    etc.), and it all amounted to P8.4M eventually. Said credit accommodations were secured
    by Jose Ma. Barredo, Carmen Borromeo, Tomas Borromeo (Private Respondents), and
    Manuel Barredo. Private respondents failed to pay their obligations to the petitioner even
    after multiple demands, which led to the filing of a collection case against all Private
    Respondents and Manuel Barredo.
    Eventually, Manuel died and the CFI where the case was filed was duly informed of
    such occurrence. Afterwards, the CFI dismissed the case and rationalized that the current
    case is for a money claim which does not survive the death of said defendant. The CFI
    further reasoned by using S6 R86 of the ROC: When the obligation of the decedent is
    solidary with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were
    the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from
    the other debtor. MR was denied.
    ISSUE: Did the CFI commit a mistake when all the cases of the petitioner were dismissed
    using S6 R86 as a ground, effectively depriving the petitioner/creditor the right to file a
    collection suit against the private respondents/surviving debtors herein?
    HELD: YES. S6 R86 was incorrectly construed and applied by the CFI in this case.
    There is nothing in S6 R86 that prohibits a creditor from proceeding against the
    surviving solitary debtors. The aforementioned provision merely prepares the procedure
    in enforcing collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his claim against the estate of
    the deceased solidary debtor.
    Art. 1216 of the NCC is more apt to be applied in the case at bar, since the
    provision empowers the creditor to proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or
    some or all of them simultaneously. There is no need to dismiss the case filed by the
    creditor against the surviving debtors just to have its claim filed against the estate of the
    deceased solidary debtor, as the SC said. If such were to happen, it will have the effect of
    being a condition precedent for any collection against the surviving debtors to prosper,
    thereby depriving the creditor of his substantive rights given by Art. 1216 of the NCC.
    That sets a dangerous precedent of procedural law repealing substantive law, which
    cannot be given credence since the weight of substantive law versus procedural law has
    already been settled by numerous jurisprudence decided by the SC.

    You might also like