2-1 HSBC Staff Retirement Plan V Sps Broqueza
2-1 HSBC Staff Retirement Plan V Sps Broqueza
2-1 HSBC Staff Retirement Plan V Sps Broqueza
1. In Civil Case No. 52400, to pay the amount of On 30 March 2006, the CA rendered its Decision[10] which The petition is meritorious. We agree with the rulings of the
Php116,740.00 at six percent interest per annum from thereversed the 11 December 2000 Decision of the RTC. The MeTC and the RTC.
time of demand and in Civil Case No. 52911, to pay the CA ruled that the HSBCL-SRPs complaints for recovery of The Promissory Notes uniformly provide:
amount of Php25,344.12 at six percent per annum from thesum of money against Gerong and the spouses Broqueza
time of the filing of these cases, until the amount is fully paid;
are premature as the loan obligations have not yet PROMISSORY NOTE
matured. Thus, no cause of action accrued in favor of
2. To pay the amount of Php20,000.00 each as reasonable HSBCL-SRP. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts P_____ Makati, M.M. ____ 19__
attorneys fees; Decision reads as follows:
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/WE _____ jointly and severally
3. Cost of suit. WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the RTC is promise to pay to THE HSBC RETIREMENT PLAN
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby rendered (hereinafter called the PLAN) at its office in the Municipality
SO ORDERED.[8] DISMISSING the consolidated complaints for recovery of of Makati, Metro Manila, on or before until fully paid the sum
sum of money. of PESOS ___ (P___) Philippine Currency without discount,
with interest from date hereof at the rate of Six per cent (6%)
Gerong and the spouses Broqueza filed a joint appeal of the SO ORDERED.[11] per annum, payable monthly.
MeTCs decision before the RTC. Gerongs case was
docketed Civil Case No. 00-786, while the spouses I/WE agree that the PLAN may, upon written notice, increase
Broquezas case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-787. HSBCL-SRP filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA the interest rate stipulated in this note at any time depending
denied for lack of merit in its Resolution[12] promulgated on on prevailing conditions.
The Regional Trial Courts Ruling 19 June 2007.
I/WE hereby expressly consent to any extensions or
The RTC initially denied the joint appeal because of the On 6 August 2007, HSBCL-SRP filed a manifestation renewals hereof for a portion or whole of the principal
belated filing of Gerong and the spouses Broquezas withdrawing the petition against Gerong because she without notice to the other(s), and in such a case our liability
memorandum. The RTC later reconsidered the order of already settled her obligations. In a Resolution[13]of this shall remain joint and several.
denial and resolved the issues in the interest of justice. Court dated 10 September 2007, this Court treated the
manifestation as a motion to withdraw the petition against In case collection is made by or through an attorney, I/WE
On 11 December 2000, the RTC affirmed the MeTCs Gerong, granted the motion, and considered the case jointly and severally agree to pay ten percent (10%) of the
decision in toto.[9] against Gerong closed and terminated. amount due on this note (but in no case less than P200.00)
as and for attorneys fees in addition to expenses and costs
The RTC ruled that Gerong and Editha Broquezas Issues of suit.
termination from employment disqualified them from availing
In case of judicial execution, I/WE hereby jointly and any way concern employee relations. As such it should be
severally waive our rights under the provisions of Rule 39, enforced through a separate civil action in the regular courts
Section 12 of the Rules of Court.[15] and not before the Labor Arbiter.[17]
In ruling for HSBCL-SRP, we apply the first paragraph of WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Decision of the
Article 1179 of the Civil Code: Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62685 promulgated
Art. 1179. Every obligation whose performance does not on 30 March 2006 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past decision of Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once. City in Civil Case No. 00-787, as well as the decision
of Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City in
x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) Civil Case No. 52400 against the spouses Bienvenido and
Editha Broqueza, are AFFIRMED. Costs against
respondents.
We affirm the findings of the MeTC and the RTC that there is
no date of payment indicated in the Promissory Notes. The SO ORDERED.
RTC is correct in ruling that since the Promissory Notes do
not contain a period, HSBCL-SRP has the right to demand
immediate payment. Article 1179 of the Civil Code
applies. The spouses Broquezas obligation to pay HSBCL-
SRP is a pure obligation. The fact that HSBCL-SRP was
content with the prior monthly check-off from Editha
Broquezas salary is of no moment. Once Editha Broqueza
defaulted in her monthly payment, HSBCL-SRP made a
demand to enforce a pure obligation.