G.R. NO. 158622 Sps Robert Alan Vs PNB
G.R. NO. 158622 Sps Robert Alan Vs PNB
G.R. NO. 158622 Sps Robert Alan Vs PNB
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
-versus-
-versus-
-versus-
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
-versus-
-versus-
-versus-
Promulgated:
AN
x-----------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
LEONEN,J.:
These consolidated cases arose from three related actions filed before
the trial courts of Davao City.
The loan was in the total amount oLP700 million, divided into two (2)
kinds of loan accommodations: a revolving credit line of P300 million, and a
seven-year long-term loan of P400 million. 3
To secure the loan, real estate mortgages were constituted on four (4)
parcels of land registered with the Registry of Deeds of Davao City.4 The
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-147820, T-151138, and T-147821
were registered in the name of Davao Sunrise, while the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. T-140122 was registered in the name of Spouses
Limso.5
In 1995, Spouses Limso sold the parcel of land covered by TCT No.
T-140122 to Davao Sunrise.6
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise had difficulty in paying their loan.
In 1999, they requested that their loan be restructured. After negotiations,
Spouses Limso, Davao Sunrise, and Philippine National Bank executed a
Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement.7
The restructured loan was divided into two (2) parts. Loan I was for
the principal amount of 583.18 million, while Loan II was for the principal
amount of 483.78 million.9 The restructured loan was secured by the same
real estate mortgage over four (4) parcels of land in the original loan
agreement. All the properties were registered in the name of Davao
Sunrise.10
4
Id. at 7, Petition for Review on Certiorari, and 423446, Transfer Certificates of Title with
Memorandum of Encumbrances.
5
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 226, Credit Agreement.
6
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. II), p. 133, Conveyance in Payment of Subscription to Increase of Capital
Stock of a Corporation.
7
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 7.
8
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 50, Petition for Review.
9
Id.
10
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 274, Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
2.04 Interest. (a) The Borrowers agree to pay the Bank interest on
Loan I from the Effective Date, until the date of full payment
thereof at the rate per annum to be set by the Bank. The interest
rate shall be reset by the Bank every month.
3.04 Interest. (a) The Borrowers agree to pay the Bank interest on
Loan II from the Effective Date, until the date of full payment
thereof at the rate per annum to be set by the Bank. The interest
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
11
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 9394, Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement.
12
Id. at 5152, Petition for Review.
13
Id. at 93, Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement.
14
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 8.
15
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 52, Petition for Review.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 209, Court of Appeals Decision in CA G.R. SP No. 63351.
19
Id.
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
After the foreclosure sale, but before the Sheriff could issue the
Provisional Certificate of Sale,20 Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise filed a
Complaint for Reformation or Annulment of contract against Philippine
National Bank, Atty. Marilou D. Aldevera, in her capacity as Ex-Officio
Provincial Sheriff of Davao City, and the Register of Deeds of Davao City.21
The Complaint was filed on October 30, 2000, raffled to Branch 17 of the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City, and docketed as Civil Case No. 28,170-
2000.22 It prayed for:
PRAYER
ON THE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
12. To pay the costs and for such other reliefs just and proper
under the circumstances.27 (Underscoring in the original)
27
Id. at 1011.
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
28
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 149156. The Order was issued by Judge Renato A. Fuentes of Branch
17, Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
29
Id. at 156.
30
Id. at 164, Regional Trial Court Order in Civil Case No. 28,170-2000. The Order was issued by Judge
Renato A. Fuentes of Branch 17, Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
31
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), pp. 1112, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
32
Id. at 12.
33
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 201215. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Salvador J.
Valdez, Jr. (Chair) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Sergio L.
Pestao of the Fifteenth Division.
34
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 12, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 216. The Resolution states:
G.R. No. 152812 (Davao Sunrise Investment and Development Corporation, et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al.). The Court Resolves to DENY the motions of petitioner for second and third
extensions totalling thirty (30) days from May 7, 2002 within which to file a petition for review on
certiorari:
(a) considering that the first motion for extension of time to file the petition for review on certiorari
was granted with warning; and
(b) for failing to submit proof of service of the motions (e.g., the affidavits of the party serving) as
required under Sec. 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The Court further Resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 2002 and March 15, 2002, respectively, for late filing in
view of the denial of the motions for extensions of time to file the same.
38
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 12, Petition for Review on Certiorari; rollo (G.R. No. 205463) p. 14,
Petition for Review on Certiorari.
39
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 220227.
40
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 13, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
41
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 14, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The Petition for Declaratory Relief was filed while the Complaint for
Reformation or Annulment with Damages was still pending before Branch
17 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.
11. That the Sheriffs Provisional Certificate of Sale has not yet
been registered with the office of respondent Register of Deeds yet; that
petitioners and DSIDC are still in actual possession of the subject
properties;
45
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 13, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
16. That the provisions of Republic Act No. 8791 do not make
mention nor exceptions to this situation where the Real Estate Mortgage is
executed by both Juridical and Natural Persons; hence, the need to file this
instant case of Declaratory Relief under Rule 63 of the Revised Rules of
Court of the Philippines;
....
PRAYER
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The temporary restraining order was issued without first hearing the
parties to the case. Hence, the temporary restraining order was recalled by
the same trial court in the Order49 dated April 16, 2002.
46
Id. at 1317.
47
Id. at 295296. The temporary restraining order was issued by Presiding Judge William M. Layague
of Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
48
Id. at 17, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
49
Id. at 297, Regional Trial Court Order in SP. Civil Case No. 29,036-2002. The Order states:
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
On May 3, 2002, Branch 14 granted the prayer for the issuance of the
writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the registration of the Sheriffs
Provisional Certificate of Sale.52
2. That Civil Case No. 28,170-2000 and Civil Case No. 29,036-
2002 while involving substantially the same parties, the same do not
involved [sic] the same issues as the former involves nullity of unilateral
imposition and increases of interest rates, etc. nullity of foreclosure
proceedings, reduction of both loan accounts, reformation or annulment of
contract, reconveyance and damages, whereas the issues raised in the
instant petition before this Court is the right and duty of the petitioners
under the last paragraph of Sec. 47, Republic Act No. 8791 and whether
the said section of said law is applicable to the petitioners considering that
the mortgage contract was executed when Act No. 3135 was the
controlling law and was in fact made part of the contract;
Considering that under Par. (d), Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is based on
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250,
February 28, 2001, the application for a Temporary Restraining Order can be acted upon only after all
parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after
the Sheriffs Return of Service, the Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court dated April 10,
2002 pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 5 of the same Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby
RECALLED and set aside.
50
Id. at 1718, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
51
Id. at 18.
52
Id. at 142, Regional Trial Court Order in SP. Civil Case No. 29,036-2002.
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
53
Id. at 141142.
54
Id. at 20, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
55
Id.
56
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), p. 11, Petition for Review.
57
Id.
58
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), p. 20, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
59
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 15, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
60
Id.
61
Id.
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
62
Id.
63
Id.
64
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), pp. 144150, Regional Trial Court Order in SP. Civil Case No. 29,036-
2002.
65
Id. at 2122, Petition for Review on Certiorari. CA G.R. SP No. 71527 was brought up to this court
under Rule 45 and was docketed as G.R. No. 158622 (Id. at 3).
66
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 16, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
67
Id. at 10 and 16. The Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Possession is entitled In the Matter of the
Petition Ex-Parte for the Issuance of Writ of Possession under L.R.C. Record No. 12973; 18031; and
LRC Cadastral Record No. 317, Philippine National Bank.
68
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), p. 16, Petition for Review.
69
Id. at 17.
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Expunge, Davao Sunrise pointed out that Branch 1470 (in the Petition for
Declaratory Relief docketed as Civil Case No. 29,036-2002) issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the Provincial Sheriff, the Register of
Deeds of Davao City[,] and [Philippine National Bank] from registering the
Sheriffs Provisional Certificate of Sale and, if registered, enjoining
[Philippine National Bank] to refrain from consolidating the title of the said
property in its name and/or offering to sell the same to interested buyers
during the pendency of the case.71
In the Resolution dated August 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted
the temporary restraining order prayed for by Philippine National Bank (in
CA G.R. SP No. 71527) enjoining the implementation of Judge Layagues
Orders dated May 3, 2002 and June 24, 2002. These Orders pertained to the
writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the registration of the Sheriffs
Provisional Certificate of Sale.74
85
Id. at 803804.
86
Id. at 805, Regional Trial Court Order in Civil Case No. 28,170-2000.
87
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), pp. 805810. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Renato A.
Fuentes of Branch 17, Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
during the hearing, including therein matters not proved during the trial on
the merits, and considered admitted, is denied.
SO ORDERED.88
In the Order95 dated March 21, 2003, Judge Quitain denied three
motions:
88
Id. at 810.
89
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 21, Petition for Review.
90
Id.
91
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), p. 16, Petition for Review.
92
The Petition in G.R. No. 169441 states August 20, 2003, but it may be deemed a typographical error.
Based on the allegations in the Petition, the proper date would be August 20, 2002.
93
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), p. 18, Petition for Review.
94
Id.
95
Id. at 824826.
Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Judge Quitain denied the Motion to Inhibit on the ground that the
allegations against him were mere suspicions and conjectures.97 The Motion
to Intervene was denied on the ground that Spouses Limso have no interest
in the case, not being the owners of the property.98
96
Id. at 824-825.
97
Id. at 20, Petition for Review. The Order states: There is no basis for the Presiding Judge to inhibit
himself considering that the allegation of bias and partiality is based merely on suspicion and
conjecture.
98
Id. at 824-825.
99
Id. at 825.
100
Id. at 827-852.
101
Id. at 827-852.
102
Id. at 22.
103
Id.
104
Id.
Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
respondents thereof.105
The temporary restraining order was effective from October 10, 2003
to December 9, 2003.106
Judge Quitain reset the hearing for Other Case No. 124-2002 to
January 23, 2004. The hearing was subsequently reset to January 30, 2004.
In the January 30, 2004 hearing, Judge Quitain heard the arguments of
parties regarding the Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing.109
In the Order dated March 12, 2004, Judge Quitain resolved the
pending Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing and [Davao Sunrises] Motion to
Re-schedule Newly Scheduled Hearing Date.110
The March 12, 2004 Order also stated that the Spouses Limso have
no right to intervene because they are no longer owners of the subject
foreclosed property.111
Spouses Limso treated the March 12, 2004 Order as a denial of their
Motion for Reconsideration regarding their Motion to Intervene. Thus, they,
together with Davao Sunrise, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court
of Appeals, which was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 84279.112
105
Id. at 23.
106
Id.
107
Id.
108
Id.
109
Id. at 24.
110
Id.
111
Id. at 25.
112
Id.
113
Id. at 11291162. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores (Chair)
and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. of the Twenty-Third
Division.
Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise then filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari dated July 26, 2005 before this court. This was docketed as G.R.
No. 168947.116
Judge Quitain granted the Motion and set the hearing for reception of
petitioners evidence on 06 April 2004 at 2:00 p.m.118
On April 20, 2004, Judge Quitain issued the Order and reset the case
for hearing to May 7, 2004, even though the Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order denying the Motion to Expunge and/or Dismiss had not been acted
114
Id. at 11631193.
115
Id. at 1197. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores (Chair) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. of the Former Twenty-
Third Division.
116
Id. at 26, Petition for Review. Upon checking with the Judgment Division, G.R. No. 168947 was
dismissed on August 17, 2005 for failure to show reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
Entry of Judgment was made on April 27, 2006.
117
Id.
118
Id.
119
Id.
120
Id. at 27.
121
Id.
Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
upon.122
During the May 7, 2004 hearing, counsel for Spouses Limso and
Davao Sunrise pointed out to Judge Quitain the pendency of the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion to Expunge and/or
Dismiss.123
Judge Quitain issued the Order dated July 5, 2004 denying Spouses
Limso and Davao Sunrises Motion for Reconsideration to the March 12,
2004 Order (referring to the denial of Spouses Limsos Motion to Intervene).
Judge Quitain also set hearing dates on August 4 and 5, 2004 for the
reception of Philippine National Banks evidence. Once again, the hearings
were scheduled even though the Motion to Expunge and/or Dismiss had yet
to be resolved.124
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise alleged that the pending incidents
were hastily acted upon by Judge Quitain, as follows:
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise also claimed that the Order dated
August 11, 2004 was done hastily so that Philippine National Bank would be
able to present its evidence without objection.129
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise alleged that the August 11, 2004
Order contained factual findings not supported by the record. When counsel
for Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise pointed out the errors, Judge Quitain
acknowledged the mistake and reset the August 11, 2004 hearing to August
27, 2004.130
In the Order132 dated March 10, 2005, Judge Quitain denied the
Motion for Compulsory Disqualification.
128
Id. at 2930.
129
Id. at 30.
130
Id. at 3031.
131
Id. at 32.
132
Id. at 1447. The Order was issued by Judge Jesus V. Quitain of Branch 15, Regional Trial Court,
Davao City.
133
Id. at 32, Petition for Review.
Decision 26 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The August 11, 2004 Order also denied Davao Sunrises Motion to
Transfer Case to Branch 17 or Dismiss the Same. Since the Motion to
Transfer is a rehash of Davao Sunrises Motion to Expunge and/or Dismiss
Petition, the denial of the Motion to Transfer is tantamount to the denial of
Davao Sunrises Motion to Expunge and/or Dismiss.134 The August 11,
2004 Order did not specifically state that Spouses Limso and Davao
Sunrises Motion for Reconsideration dated March 28, 2003 was denied, but
since the issues raised in the Motion to Reconsideration were also raised in
the Motion to Expunge, the August 11, 2004 Order also effectively denied
the Motion for Reconsideration.135
Patriarca.
complaints against Atty. Patriarca were filed in 2002. The Resolution of the Land Registration
Authority in the administrative case against Atty. Patriarca states that in a directive dated July 31,
2002, she was directed to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against her.
146
Id. at 16, Petition for Review on Certiorari. The criminal Complaint was filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, sec. 3(f), which provides:
SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
....
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.
147
Id. at 16, Petition for Review on Certiorari. The administrative case against Atty. Patriarca was
entitled Ma. L. Pesayco v. Florenda F.T. Patriarca.
148
Id. at 8790.
149
Id. at 90.
150
Id. at 17, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
The parties used the term snowpake. Snowpake is a colloquial term describing the white
correction fluid used to cover errors written or printed on paper. In this case, a signature was erased
using correction fluid.
Decision 28 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
documents.154
154
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 17, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
155
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 262 and 317.
156
Id. at 58, Petition for Review.
157
Id. at 5859.
158
Id. at 59.
Decision 29 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Records show that when this Court annulled the RTCs order of
injunction, Davao Sunrise thereafter elevated the matter to the Supreme
Court. On July 24, 2002, the Supreme Court denied its petition for having
been filed out of time and an Entry of Judgment was issued on Sept. 11,
2002.
SO ORDERED.167
Thus, on July 21, 2006, Philippine National Bank filed before this
court a Petition for Review170 on Certiorari questioning the Court of
Appeals denial of its applications.171 This was docketed as G.R. No.
173194.172
164
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 81, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV. No. 79732.
165
Id.
166
Id. at 7782. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and was
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello (Chair) and Ricardo R. Rosario of the Twenty-
Third Division.
167
Id. at 82.
168
Id. at 8486. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and was
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello (Chair) and Ramon R. Garcia, of the Special
Twenty-Third Division.
169
Id. at 59, Petition for Review.
170
Id. at 4575.
171
Id. at 59.
172
Id. at 45.
Decision 31 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration, the trial court required the
Registry of Deeds to comment on the matter.176
173
Id. at 558561. Other Case No. 124-2002 was re-raffled to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio.
174
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 19, Petition for Review on Certiorari; Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 561,
Order in Other Case No. 124-2002.
175
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 19, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
176
Id. at 21.
177
Id. at 23.
178
Id. at 23, Petition for Review on Certiorari, and 55, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No.
01464-MIN.
179
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 82, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732.
180
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 98, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
181
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 111, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
Decision 32 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
182
Id. at 98127. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, concurred in by
Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja (Chair) and Edgardo A. Camello, and dissented from by Associate
Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias, of the Special Division of Five, Mindanao Station.
Associate Justice Camello penned a Concurring Opinion. Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Separate
Dissenting Opinion.
183
Id. at 111114.
184
Id. at 111, citing par. 1.04 of the original revolving credit line agreement.
185
Id. at 112, citing par. 1.03 of the original loan agreement.
186
Id., citing par. 2.04 of the interest provision of Loan I.
187
Id. at 118.
188
Id. at 119120.
Decision 33 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Such being the case, We apply the ruling of the Supreme Court in
the case of United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Spouses Samuel and Odette
Beluso which stated:
189
Id. at 124.
190
CIVIL CODE, art. 1229 provides:
Article 1229. The judge shall equitable reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been
partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty
may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
191
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), pp. 125126.
Decision 34 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
192
Id.
193
Id. at 126127.
194
Id. at 45, Petition for Review.
195
Id. at 154, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
196
Id.
197
Id.
198
Id. at 45, Petition for Review.
199
Id. at 160, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
200
Id. at 153168. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja (Chair), concurred
in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Zenaida Galapate Laguilles, and dissented from by
Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Edgardo T. Lloren, of the Special Former Special Twenty-
Second Division, Mindanao Station. Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Dissenting Opinion.
Decision 35 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The Court of Appeals held that Philippine National Banks Motion for
Reconsideration raised issues that were a mere rehash of the issues already
ruled upon.201
With regard to Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrises Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals ruled that:
Since the appellees did not appeal from the decision of the lower
court, they are not entitled to any award of affirmative relief. It is well
settled that an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from
the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the
decision of the court below. The appellee can only advance any
argument that he may deem necessary to defeat the appellants claim or
to uphold the decision that is being disputed. . . . Thus, the lower courts
finding that the appellees have an unpaid obligation with PNB, and not
the other way around, should stand. It bears stressing that appellees even
acknowledged their outstanding indebtedness with the PNB when they
filed their Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal of the August
13, 2002 Order of the lower court decreeing that appellees remaining
obligation with PNB is P205,084,682.61. They cannot now claim that
PNB is the one indebted to them in the amount of P15,915,588.89.202
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise also filed a Petition for Review206
on Certiorari questioning the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 79732-MIN that their outstanding obligation was 803,185,411.11.207
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise argue that they made overpayments in
the amount of P15,915,588.89.208 This was docketed as G.R. No.
197120.209
201
Id. at 160.
202
Id. at 167.
203
Id. at 896.
204
Id. at 5675.
205
Id. at 8.
206
Rollo (G.R. No. 197120), pp. 339.
207
Id. at 4.
208
Id.
209
Id. at 3.
Decision 36 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Philippine National Bank availed itself of the wrong remedy.210 What the
Philippine National Bank should have filed was a petition for review under
Rule 45 and not an appeal under Rule 41[.]211
On March 15, 2013, the Philippine National Bank filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari212 before this court, assailing the dismissal of its appeal
before the Court of Appeals and praying that the Decision of the trial court
that the Sheriffs Provisional Certificate of Sale was not signed by the
Register of Deeds and was not registeredbe reversed and set aside. The
Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 205463.213
G.R. No. 158622 was filed on July 1, 2003;214 G.R. No. 169441 was
filed on September 14, 2005;215 G.R. No. 172958 was filed on June 26,
2006;216 G.R. No. 173194 was filed on July 21, 2006;217 G.R. No. 196958
was filed on June 17, 2011;218 G.R. No. 197120 was filed on June 22,
2011;219 and G.R. No. 205463 was filed on March 15, 2013.220
225
Id. at 1820 and 22.
226
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), pp. 640647.
227
Rollo (G.R. No. 172958), pp. 131149. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A.
Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores (Chair) and Myrna
Dimaranan-Vidal of the Twenty-First Division.
228
Id. at 150156. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred
in by Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores (Chair) and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal of the Former
Twenty-First Division.
229
Id. at 132, Court of Appeals Decision in CA G.R. SP No. 85847.
230
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 131148, Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 28,170-2000.
231
Id. at 7782. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in
by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello (Chair) and Ricardo R. Rosario of the Twenty-Third
Division.
Decision 38 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
232
Id. at 8486. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in
by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello (Chair) and Ramon R. Garcia of the Special Twenty-Third
Division.
233
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 16. Petition for Review.
234
Id. at 98127, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN. The Decision was penned
by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja (Chair) and
Edgardo A. Camello, and dissented from by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P.
Elbinias of the Special Division of Five, Mindanao Station. Associate Justice Camello penned a
Concurring Opinion. Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Separate Dissenting Opinion. The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeals decision stated:
Wherefore, the assailed Decision dated June 19, 2002 and Order dated August
13, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17 in Civil Case No.
28, 170-2000 declaring the unilateral imposition of interest rates by defendant-
appellant PNB as null and void appealed from are affirmed with the
modification that the obligation of plaintiffs-appellees arising from the Loan and
Revolving Credit Line and subsequent Conversion, Restructuring and Extension
Agreement as Loan I and Loan II should earn interest at the legal rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum computed from September 1, 1993 until fully paid and
satisfied.
235
Id. at 153168, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN. The Resolution was
penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja (Chair), concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A.
Camello and Zenaida Galapate Laguilles, and dissented from by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
and Edgardo T. Lloren of the Special Former Special Twenty-Second Division, Mindanao Station.
Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Dissenting Opinion. The dispositive portion of the Resolution
states:
Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 3, 2009 filed by
defendant-appellant, Philippine National Bank and the Motion for Partial
Reconsideration dated September 4, 2009 filed by plaintiffs-appellees Davao
Sunrise Investment and Development Corporation and Spouses Robert Alan L.
Limso and Nancy Lee Limso, are BOTH DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
236
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), pp. 98-127.
Decision 39 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
237
Id. at 153-168.
238
Id. at 98.
239
Rollo (G.R. No. 197120), pp. 235252.
240
Id. at 4473. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, concurred in by
Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja (Chair) and Edgardo A. Camello, and dissented from by Associate
Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias of the Special Division of Five, Mindanao Station.
Associate Justice Camello penned a Concurring Opinion. Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Separate
Dissenting Opinion.
241
Id. at 99114. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja (Chair), concurred in
by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Zenaida Galapate Laguilles, and dissented from by
Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Edgardo T. Lloren, of the Special Former Special Twenty-
Second Division, Mindanao Station. Associate Justice Lim, Jr. penned a Dissenting Opinion.
242
Id. at 4, Petition for Review.
243
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 56, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 01464-MIN.
244
Id. at 5566. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Twenty-First
Division.
245
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), pp. 30003003.
Decision 40 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Sunrise prayed that it be allowed to withdraw G.R. No. 169441 since the
issues in the Petition had become moot and academic.
On May 17, 2012, counsel for Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise
notified this court of the death of Robert Alan L. Limso.251
After Judge Quitain had inhibited, Other Case No. 124-2002 was re-
raffled to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.254 Other
Case No. 124-2002 was dismissed in the Order255 dated February 16, 2007.
Since Other Case No. 124-2002 was dismissed, G.R. No. 172958 was
mooted as well.256
246
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. I), pp. 14221423.
247
Rollo (G.R. No. 169441), pp. 17751776.
248
Id. at 1776.
249
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 470A-470B.
250
Rollo (G.R. No. 197120), pp. 565566.
251
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), pp. 381382, Notice of Death.
252
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, Vol. II), pp. 11401149.
253
Id. at 11421143.
254
Id. at 1158, Regional Trial Court Order in Other Case No. 124-2002.
255
Id. at 11581160. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio of Branch 16,
Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
256
Id. at 11431144, Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrises Motion to Withdraw Petitions in G.R. Nos.
172958, 169441, and 158622.
Decision 41 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
With regard to G.R. No. 158622, counsel for Spouses Limso and
Davao Sunrise explained:
In the Resolution258 dated March 12, 2014, this court granted the
Motion to Withdraw Petitions with regard to G.R. Nos. 172958 and 158622.
The prayer for the withdrawal of G.R. No. 169441 was noted without action
since G.R. No. 169441 was deemed closed and terminated in this courts
Resolution dated October 16, 2006.259
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise argue that they were allowed to
participate in Other Case No. 124-2002, and that Philippine National Bank
was in bad faith when it did not furnish Nancy Limso and Davao Sunrise
copies of the Petition for Review it had filed.261
In the Resolution262 dated April 2, 2014, this court gave due course to
the Petition and required the parties to submit their memoranda.
On April 15, 2014, Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Petition in G.R. No. 173194 on the ground that the issues
raised by Philippine National Bank are moot and academic. Spouses Limso
and Davao Sunrise also reiterated that Philippine National Bank availed of
the wrong remedy.263
In the Resolution265 dated October 13, 2014, this court noted and
granted the Omnibus Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by counsel for
Nancy Limso and Davao Sunrise.266 This court also noted the memoranda
filed by counsel for Philippine National Bank, the Office of the Solicitor
General, and counsel for Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise.267
The remaining issues for resolution are those raised in G.R. Nos.
173194, 196958, 197120, and 205463, which are:
Third, whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the interest
rates imposed by Philippine National Bank were usurious and
unconscionable;
265
Id. at 972973.
266
Id. at 972.
267
Id. at 973.
268
Id. at 7782. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in
by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello (Chair) and Ricardo R. Rosario of the Twenty-Third
Division.
Decision 43 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
....
269
Id. at 10011002.
270
As amended by A.M. 07-7-12-SC.
Decision 44 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
271
556 Phil. 178 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
272
Id. at 188189.
Decision 45 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The proper remedy for Philippine National Bank would have been to
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or, in the alternative, to await the
outcome of the main case and file an appeal, raising the denial of its
applications as an assignment of error.
Philippine National Bank also argues that the Court of Appeals erred
in denying its application to be appointed as receiver because although the
Sheriffs Provisional Certificate of Sale was not registered, the Certificate of
Sale provides the basis for [Philippine National Bank] to claim ownership
over the foreclosed properties.275 As the highest bidder, Philippine National
Bank had the right to receive the rental income of the foreclosed
properties.276
273
RULES OF COURT, Rule 57, sec. 20 provides:
SECTION 20. Claim for Damages on Account of Improper, Irregular or Excessive Attachment. An
application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before
the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the
attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the
amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the
judgment on the main case[.]
274
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 65, Petition for Review. Note that CA-G.R. CV No. 79732 was
subsequently re-docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
275
Id. at 67.
276
Id. at 6768.
277
Id. at 471498.
278
Id. at 477481.
279
144 Phil. 143 (1970) [Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Banc].
Decision 46 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise further point out that while CA-
G.R. CV No. 79732 was still pending before the Court of Appeals, the
decree dissolving the questioned Writ of Preliminary Injunction had already
become final.283 Thus, Philippine National Bank filed its application out
of time.284
They argue that in any case, Philippine National Bank cannot claim
damages on the injunction bond since it was unable to secure a judgment in
its favor in Civil Case No. 28,170-2000.285
They further argue that the Court of Appeals was correct in denying
Philippine National Banks application to be appointed as receiver on the
ground that Philippine National Bank is a party to the case and hence, it
cannot be appointed as receiver.286
280
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 479, Comment.
281
This Decision refers to that in G.R. No. 152812.
282
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 478479, Comment.
283
Id. at 480.
284
Id. at 480481.
285
Id. at 481.
286
Id. at 488.
287
Id. at 492.
288
Id. at 666, Reply.
289
Id. at 667.
290
228 Phil. 529 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Second Division].
291
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 667, Reply.
Decision 47 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Philippine National Bank also argued that under the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, the applicant for damages does not have to be the winning
party.292
Philippine National Bank further argues that it did not commit forum
shopping since there is no identity of parties between CA G.R. CV No.
79732 . . . and Other Case No. 124-2002.293 The causes of action and
reliefs sought in the two cases are different.294 It points out that its
application to be appointed as receiver is a provisional remedy under Rule
59 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, while its prayer for the issuance of
a writ of possession in Other Case No. 124-2002 is based on its right to
possess the properties involved.295
Records show that when this Court annulled the RTCs order of
injunction, Davao Sunrise thereafter elevated the matter to the Supreme
Court. On July 24, 2002, the Supreme Court denied its petition for
having been filed out of time and an Entry of Judgment was issued on
Sept[ember] 11, 2002.
292
Id. at 671674.
293
Id. at 683.
294
Id. at 684.
295
Id.
296
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 7980, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732. The
injunction referred to is the writ of preliminary injunction issued in Civil Case No. 28,170-2000.
Decision 48 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Resolution was docketed as G.R. No. 152812 and was entitled Davao
Sunrise Investment and Development Corporation, et al. v. Court of Appeals,
et al.297 G.R. No. 152812 originated from CA G.R. SP No. 63351.298 CA
G.R. SP No. 63351 was a Petition for Certiorari filed by Philippine National
Bank, which questioned the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in
Civil Case No. 28,170-2000.299
....
Above all, the core and ultimate issue raised in the main case
below is the interest stipulation in the loan agreements between the
petitioner and private respondents, the validity of which is still to be
determined by the lower court. Injunctive relief cannot be made to rest
on the assumption that said interest stipulation is void as it would
preempt the merits of the main case.
SO ORDERED.301
297
Id. at 216, Supreme Court Resolution.
298
Id. at 5556, Petition for Review.
299
Id. at 201202, Court of Appeals Decision in CA G.R. SP No. 63351.
300
Id. at 201215. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. (Chair) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Sergio L. Pestao of the Fifteenth
Division.
301
Id. at 212215, Court of Appeals Decision in CA G.R. SP No. 63351.
302
Id. at 216217.
303
Id. at 218.
Decision 49 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the
attachment was issued from recovering in the same action the
damages awarded to him from any property of the attaching party
not exempt from execution should the bond or deposit given by the
latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award.
304
508 Phil. 260 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
305
Id. at 277278.
Decision 50 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
306
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 262272.
307
Id. at 271.
308
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 98, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
Decision 51 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
309
340 Phil. 551 (1997) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
310
Id. at 559.
311
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 33, Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732.
312
Id. at 3334.
313
Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/109645.pdf>
3940 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
Decision 52 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The causes of action are also different. In the Petition for Issuance of
Writ of Possession, Philippine National Bank prays that it be granted a writ
of possession over the foreclosed properties because it is the winning bidder
in the foreclosure sale.314 On the other hand, Philippine National Banks
application to be appointed as receiver is for the purpose of preserving these
properties pending the resolution of CA-G.R. CV No. 79732.315 While the
issuance of a writ of possession or the appointment as receiver would have
the same result of granting possession of the foreclosed properties to
Philippine National Bank, Philippine National Banks right to possess these
properties as the winning bidder in the foreclosure sale is different from its
interest as creditor to preserve these properties.
II
The Petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 196958 and 197120 assail the
Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.316
Philippine National Bank also argues that Spouses Limso and Davao
Sunrise were regularly informed by Philippine National Bank of the interest
rates imposed on their loan, as shown by Robert Alan L. Limsos signatures
314
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 682, Philippine National Banks Reply.
315
Id. at 337340, Application for the Appointment of PNB as Receiver.
316
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 13, Petition for Review; rollo (G.R. No. 197120), p. 4, Petition for
Review.
317
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 52, Petition for Review.
318
Id. at 61.
Decision 53 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
On the other hand, Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise argue that the
Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the interest rates were imposed
unilaterally. Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise allege that the interest rates
were not stipulated in writing, in violation of Article 1956 of the Civil
Code.324 Also, the Court of Appeals did not err in reducing the penalties and
attorneys fees since Article 2227 of the Civil Code states:325
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise add that the letters sent by
Philippine National Bank to Davao Sunrise were not agreements but mere
notices that the interest rates were increased by Philippine National Bank.326
Moreover, the letters were received by Davao Sunrises employees who
were not authorized to receive such letters.327 Some of the letters did not
even appear to have been received by anyone at all.328
319
Id. at 5356.
320
Id. at 63.
321
639 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
322
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 71, Petition for Review.
323
Id. at 7879.
324
Id. at 294, Comment.
325
Id. at 321322.
326
Id. at 297298.
327
Id. at 298300.
328
Id. at 300301.
Decision 54 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
329
Id. at 322.
330
Id. at 292.
331
Id. at 365, Reply.
332
Id. at 367368.
333
Id. at 304, Comment.
334
Id. at 314.
Decision 55 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Article 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its
validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.
The Court of Appeals also noted that since the interest rates imposed
were at the sole discretion of Philippine National Bank, and that Spouses
Limso and Davao Sunrise were merely notified when there were changes in
the interest rates, Philippine National Bank violated the principle of
mutuality of contracts.338 The Court of Appeals ruled that:
335
G.R. No. 187678, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 520 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
336
Id. at 531.
337
Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 382, 390 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, First
Division].
338
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 113, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
Decision 56 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The contents of the letter quoted by the Court of Appeals show that
there was no room for negotiation among Philippine National Bank, Spouses
Limso, and Davao Sunrise when it came to the applicable interest rate.
Since there was no room for negotiations between the parties with regard to
the increases of the rates of interest, the principle of mutuality of contracts
was violated. There was no meeting of the minds between Spouses Limso,
Davao Sunrise, and Philippine National Bank because the increases in the
interest rates were imposed on them unilaterally.
339
Id. at 121122.
340
Clemente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175483, October 14, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/october2015/175483.pdf> 7
[Per J. Jardeleza, Third Division]. See also Heirs of Spouses Intac v. Court of Appeals, et al., 697 Phil.
373, 383 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
341
Clemente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175483, October 14, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/october2015/175483.pdf> 7
[Per J. Jardeleza, Third Division].
Decision 57 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
This court has held that while the Usury Law was suspended by
Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, unconscionable interest rates
may be declared illegal.345 The suspension of the Usury Law did not give
creditors an unbridled right to impose arbitrary interest rates. To determine
whether an interest rate is unconscionable, we are guided by the following
pronouncement:
342
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), p. 102.
343
Id. at 103.
344
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 320, Comment.
345
Spouses Castro v. Tan, et al., 620 Phil. 239, 247 (2009) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
Decision 58 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
CREDIT AGREEMENT
....
LOAN AGREEMENT
....
1.03 Interest. (a) The Borrowers hereby agree to pay interest on the
loan from the date of Drawdown up to Repayment Date at the rate
that is determined by the Bank to be the Banks prime rate in effect
at the Date of Drawdown less 1.0% and which shall be reset every
90 days to coincide with interest payments.
346
Spouses Abella v. Spouses Abella, G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/195166.pdf> 12
[Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
347
Rollo (G.R. No. 197120), pp. 139140, Credit Agreement.
348
Id. at 143144, Loan Agreement.
Decision 59 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
2.04 Interest. (a) The Borrowers agree to pay the Bank interest on
Loan I from the Effective Date, until the date of full payment
thereof at the rate per annum to be set by the Bank. The interest
rate shall be reset by the Bank every month.
....
....
3.04 Interest. (a) The Borrowers agree to pay the Bank interest on
Loan II from the Effective Date, until the date of full payment
thereof at the rate per annum to be set by the Bank. The interest
rate shall be reset by the Bank every month.349 (Emphasis supplied,
underscoring in the original)
From the terms of the loan agreements, there was no way for Spouses
Limso and Davao Sunrise to determine the interest rate imposed on their
loan because it was always at the discretion of Philippine National Bank.
Nor could Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise determine the exact
amount of their obligation because of the frequent changes in the interest
rates imposed.
Also invalid are the escalation clauses in the real estate mortgage and
promissory notes. The escalation clause in the real estate mortgage states:
349
Id. at 181, Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement.
350
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 118, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
Decision 60 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
For this purpose, I/We agree that the rate of interest herein
stipulated may be increased or decreased for the subsequent
Interest Periods, with prior notice to the Borrower in the event of
changes in interest rate prescribed by law or the Monetary Board
or the Central Bank of the Philippines, or in the Banks overall cost
of funds.353
This court has held that escalation clauses are not always void since
they serve to maintain fiscal stability and to retain the value of money in
long term contracts.356 However:
....
The original loan agreement in this case was executed in 1993. Prior
to the execution of the original loan agreement, this court promulgated a
Decision in 1991 ruling that the unilateral action of the [Philippine National
Bank] in increasing the interest rate on the private respondents loan,
violated the mutuality of contracts ordained in Article 1308 of the Civil
Code[.]359
The Promissory Note, in turn, authorized the PNB to raise the rate
of interest, at any time without notice, beyond the stipulated rate of 12%
but only within the limits allowed by law.
The Real Estate Mortgage contract likewise provided that
357
Id. at 531539.
358
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 789, 798799 (1991) [Per J. Grio-Aquino,
First Division]; Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107569, November 8, 1994,
238 SCRA 20, 26 [Per J. Puno, Second Division]; Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 328
Phil. 54, 6061 (1996) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]; Philippine National Bank v. Manalo, G.R.
No. 174433, February 24, 2014, 717 SCRA 254, 269270 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; Silos v.
Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 181045, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 617, 643655 [Per J. Del
Castillo, Second Division].
359
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 789, 798 (1991) [Per J. Grio-Aquino, First
Division].
360
G.R. No. 107569, November 8, 1994, 238 SCRA 20 [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
361
Id. at 2627.
Decision 62 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
362
Id. at 22.
363
Id. at 26.
364
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 54, 63 (1996) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division]. In this case, the assailed interest rate provision in the real estate mortgage stated:
(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:
The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this mortgage as well as the interest on the
amount which may have been advanced by the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provision
hereof, shall be subject during the life of this contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by
law, as the Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors (Id. at 57).
365
Id. at 63.
366
Mallari v. Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine Islands), G.R. No. 197861, June 5, 2013, 697
SCRA 555, 566 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
367
See Andal v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 194201, November 27, 2013, 711 SCRA 15, 28 [Per
J. Perez, Second Division].
Decision 63 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Further, Spouses Abella cited Article 2212371 of the Civil Code and
the ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,372 which both state that interest due
shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded:373
368
G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/195166.pdf> [Per
J. Leonen, Second Division].
369
Id. at 10.
370
Id. The term conventional interest was defined in the case as interest as the cost of borrowing
money (Id. at 7).
371
CIVIL CODE, art. 2212 provides:
Article 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the
obligation may be silent upon this point.
372
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc], specifically: 1. When
the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance
of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the
interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial
or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code (Id. at
457458).
373
Spouses Abella v. Spouses Abella, G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/195166.pdf> 13
[Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
374
Id.
Decision 64 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
made on August 21, 2000 when Philippine National Bank filed a Petition375
for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.376 Thus, from August
21, 2000 to June 30, 2013, the interest rate on conventional interest shall be
at 12%. From July 1, 2013 until full payment, the applicable interest rate on
conventional interest shall be at 6%.
III
375
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 106112.
376
Id. at 52, Petition for Review.
377
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), pp. 7879, Petition for Review.
Decision 65 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
WITNESSETH: That
....
....
....
378
St. James College of Paraaque, et al. v. Equitable PCI Bank, 641 Phil. 452, 462 (2010) [Per J.
Velasco, Jr., First Division].
379
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), pp. 221224.
380
Id. at 223.
381
Id. at 272277.
382
Id. at 276.
Decision 66 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
383
Id. at 272273.
384
Rollo (G.R. No. 196958), p. 105, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
385
Id. at 34, Petition for Review.
Decision 67 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from September 1, 1993, until
fully paid and satisfied.
SO ORDERED.386
To avoid confusion, we also rule that the interest rate provisions and
the escalation clauses in the Conversion, Restructuring and Extension
Agreement are nullified insofar as they allow Philippine National Bank to
unilaterally determine and increase the imposable interest rates.
Article 1409388 of the Civil Code provides that void contracts cannot
be ratified. Hence, the void interest rate provisions in the original loan
agreement could not have been ratified by the execution of the Conversion,
Restructuring and Extension Agreement.
IV
386
Id. at 125127, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79732-MIN.
387
PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 821, 833 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
388
CIVIL CODE, art. 1409 provides:
Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be
ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.
Decision 69 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an appeal under
Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Denying Philippine National Banks appeal under Rule 41, the Court
of Appeals stated that:
....
when the doubt or difference exists as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts. Negatively put, Rule 45 does not allow the review of questions
of fact. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
Based on the foregoing, there was no error on the part of the Court of
Appeals when it dismissed Philippine National Banks Petition for being the
wrong remedy. Indeed, Philippine National Bank was not questioning the
probative value of the evidence. Instead, it was questioning the conclusion
of the trial court that registration had not been perfected based on the
evidence presented.
Philippine National Bank further argues that [t]he records of all the
transactions are recorded in the Primary Entry Book and the annotation on
the titles of the transaction do not control registration. It is the recording in
the Primary Entry Book which controls registration.397
394
Id. at 378379.
395
632 Phil. 471, 494 (2010) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
396
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 38, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
397
Id. at 39.
398
Id.
Decision 71 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
399
Id. at 906, Philippine National Banks Memorandum.
400
Id. at 930.
401
Id.
402
Id. at 89.
403
Id. at 4142, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Decision 72 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment,406 quoting the
dispositive portion of the Land Registration Authoritys Consulta No. 3405
dated May 21, 2002:407
The Office of the Solicitor General also quotes the dispositive portion
of the Land Registration Authoritys Resolution in the Motion for
Reconsideration:409
For the Office of the Solicitor General, the Register of Deeds refusal
to affix the annotation on the foreclosed properties titles should not
preclude the completion of the registration of any applicant who has
complied with the requirements of the law to register its right or interest in
registered lands.414
404
General Banking Law of 2000.
405
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), pp. 4448, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
406
Id. at 7984.
407
Id. at 80.
408
Id.
409
Id. at 8081.
410
Id. at 81.
411
481 Phil. 298 (2004) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
412
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), pp. 8182, Office of the Solicitor Generals Comment.
413
Id. at 82.
414
Id. at 951, Office of the Solicitor Generals Memorandum.
Decision 73 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
415
Id. at 860897.
416
Pres. Decree No. 1529 (1978), sec. 117 provides:
SECTION 117.Procedure. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to
be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument
presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by
the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the
Commissioner of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the
Register of Deeds.
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in
writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that
if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from the Registry,
elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon payment of a consulta fee in such amount as shall be
prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title
which shall be cancelled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision
thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records certified to him after
notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum
to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of
Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the
Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the
manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.
417
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), pp. 881882, Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrises Memorandum.
418
Id. at 883884.
419
Id. at 881. Although the records do not show whether DSIDC and Spouses Limso were allowed to
intervene, a copy of the Resolution requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda was sent
to counsel for DSIDC and Spouses Limso.
420
Id. at 884.
421
Pres. Decree No. 1529 (1978), sec. 56 provides:
SECTION 56. Primary Entry Book; Fees; Certified Copies. Each Register of Deeds shall keep a
primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he shall enter, in the order of their
reception, all instruments including copies of writs and processes filed with him relating to registered
land. He shall, as a preliminary process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute of
reception of all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as
registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when made on the
certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date: Provided, that the national government as
well as the provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees in advance
in order to be entitled to entry and registration.
Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with the Register of Deeds
shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a reference to the proper certificate of title. All
records and papers relative to registered land in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the
public in the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Register of
Deeds, under the direction of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may prescribe.
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective copies and shall be
attested and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with the file number, and copies may be
delivered to the person presenting them.
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the Register of Deeds
upon payment of the prescribed fees.
Decision 74 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise posit that Philippine National Bank
admitted that the Certificate of Sale is not registered in various hearings.424
These admissions are judicial admissions that should be binding on
Philippine National Bank.425
Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise allege that during the oral
arguments held on March 19, 2003 at the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP
No. 71527, counsel for Philippine National Bank stated:426
422
Property Registration Decree (1978).
423
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 885, Nancy Limso and Davao Sunrises Memorandum.
424
Id. at 886888.
425
Id. at 887888.
426
Id. at 886887.
427
Id. at 887.
428
Id. at 894.
Decision 75 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
....
429
Autocorp Group and Autographics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 481 Phil. 298, 312 (2004) [Per J. Puno,
Second Division].
Decision 76 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Based on the records of this case, the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale filed
by Philippine National Bank was already recorded in the Primary Entry
Book.
430
Id. at 311312.
431
Rollo (G.R. No. 205463), p. 89, Land Registration Authoritys Resolution.
Decision 77 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
From the quoted provision, one can readily conclude that before
the sale is confirmed, it is not considered final or perfected to entitle the
purchaser at the auction sale to the writ of possession as a matter of right. .
..
SO ORDERED.432
SECTION 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the
purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place
where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession
thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount
equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to
indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without
violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this
Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex
parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is
registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered
under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of
the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a
mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in
accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court
shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in
paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered
Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight
hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond,
order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the
province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order
immediately.
Decision 79 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
The rule under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 was restated in Nagtalon v.
United Coconut Planters Bank:435
VI
To fully dispose of all the issues in these consolidated cases, this court
shall also rule on one of the issues raised in G.R. No. 158622.
In G.R. No. 158622, Spouses Limso and Davao Sunrise allege that the
Sheriffs Provisional Certificate of Sale does not state the appropriate
redemption period; thus, they filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which
was docketed as Civil Case No. 29,036-2002.438
Act No. 3135 provides that the period of redemption is one (1) year
after the sale.439 On the other hand, Republic Act No. 8791 provides a
435
G.R. No. 172504, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 615 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
436
Id. at 623.
437
Tolosa v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 183058, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 138, 146 [Per J.
Perez, Second Division].
438
Rollo (G.R. No. 158622, vol. I), pp. 1317, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
439
Act 3135 (1924), sec. 6, as amended by Act 4118 (1933), sec. 1, provides:
SEC. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power hereinbefore
referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said
debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under
Decision 80 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
We rule that the period of redemption for this case should be not more
than three (3) months in accordance with Section 47 of Republic Act No.
8791. The mortgaged properties are all owned by Davao Sunrise. Section 47
of Republic Act No. 8791 states: the mortgagor or debtor whose real
property has been sold and juridical persons whose property is being
sold[.] Clearly, the law itself provides that the right to redeem belongs to
the owner of the property mortgaged. As the mortgaged properties all
belong to Davao Sunrise, the shorter period of three (3) months is the
applicable redemption period.
which the property is sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after
the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred
and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as
these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
440
Rep. Act No. 8791 (2000), sec. 47.
441
G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 439 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
442
Id. at 453.
443
Rollo (G.R. No. 173194), pp. 106111, Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.
Decision 81 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120, 205463
Interest on the principal loan obligation shall be at the rate of 12% per
annum and computed from January 28, 1999, the date of the execution of the
Conversion, Restructuring and Extension Agreement. Interest rate on the
conventional interest shall be at the rate of 12% per annum from August 21,
2000, the date of judicial demand, to June 30, 2013. From July 1, 2013 until
full satisfaction, the interest rate on the conventional interest shall be
computed at 6% per annum in view of this courts ruling in Nacar v. Gallery
Frames.444
444
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 457458 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]. In Nacar, this
court held: To recapitulate and for future guidance, the guidelines laid down in the case of Eastern
Shipping Lines are accordingly modified to embody BSP-MB Circular No. 799, as follows:
I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-
delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title
XVIII on Damages of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable
damages.
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory
damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.
In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article
1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on
the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6%
per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except
when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the
demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the
claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot
be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only
from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may
be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal
interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate
of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per
annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013,
shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.
(Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Decision 82 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
' , . ....
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
U)hJJt>fJ~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
$~J
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Decision 83 G.R. Nos. 158622, 169441,
172958, 173194, 196958,
197120,205463
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.