Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Opposition To The Motion For Reconsideration Comment/Arguments

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to exclude the amount guaranteed by Quedancor from their total obligations to the bank. However, the court denies the motion, finding that the issues raised have already been considered and the arguments are repetitive. The court ruled correctly in including the Quedancor amount, as the bank was entitled to proceed against the principal debtors (plaintiffs) despite an offer by the guarantor (Quedancor) to pay, and the existence of the debt was not disputed. Therefore, the opposition asks the court to deny the motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

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

    Opposition To The Motion For Reconsideration Comment/Arguments

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    55 views3 pages
    The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to exclude the amount guaranteed by Quedancor from their total obligations to the bank. However, the court denies the motion, finding that the issues raised have already been considered and the arguments are repetitive. The court ruled correctly in including the Quedancor amount, as the bank was entitled to proceed against the principal debtors (plaintiffs) despite an offer by the guarantor (Quedancor) to pay, and the existence of the debt was not disputed. Therefore, the opposition asks the court to deny the motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    opposition to the motion for reconsideration

    Original Title

    CHUA-VS.-BPI

    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 plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to exclude the amount guaranteed by Quedancor from their total obligations to the bank. However, the court denies the motion, finding that the issues raised have already been considered and the arguments are repetitive. The court ruled correctly in including the Quedancor amount, as the bank was entitled to proceed against the principal debtors (plaintiffs) despite an offer by the guarantor (Quedancor) to pay, and the existence of the debt was not disputed. Therefore, the opposition asks the court to deny the motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views3 pages

    Opposition To The Motion For Reconsideration Comment/Arguments

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to exclude the amount guaranteed by Quedancor from their total obligations to the bank. However, the court denies the motion, finding that the issues raised have already been considered and the arguments are repetitive. The court ruled correctly in including the Quedancor amount, as the bank was entitled to proceed against the principal debtors (plaintiffs) despite an offer by the guarantor (Quedancor) to pay, and the existence of the debt was not disputed. Therefore, the opposition asks the court to deny the motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    Regional Trial Court


    Second Judicial Region
    Branch 36
    Santiago City

    OSCAR CHUA and NANCY CHUA Civil Case No. 36-


    2610
    Plaintiffs

    Versus

    BPI Et.al
    Defendants
    X--------------------------------------X

    OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    COMMENT/ARGUMENTS

    A. Plaintiffs filed the instant action to assail the propriety of the act of the
    defendant bank in foreclosing the real estate mortgage and subsequent
    sale of the properties constituted as security for the plaintiff’s loan to the
    bank. After full briefing from the parties, the Court sustained the validity
    of the defendant’s act as well as the inclusion of the amount guaranteed
    by Quedan Financing in the said foreclosure in view of the defendant’s
    default. However, the court ordered the computation of the plaintiff’s
    obligation at a liberal rate of interest. The plaintiffs yet again filed this
    motion to exclude the amount guaranteed by Quedancor in the
    computation of their total obligations to the bank which could not be
    sustained.

    B. The issues raised to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the plaintiff
    through Counsel dated 13 September 2016 presents no argument that
    were not already presented to and considered by the court; but rather
    merely repackages arguments which are repetitious and a mere rehash of
    matters taken already during the previous hearings. Accordingly, the court
    should deny the motion.

    C. The Court did not err in its ruling dated 17 August 2016. The inclusion of
    the sum of money guaranteed by QUEDANCOR in the computation of the
    obligation of the plaintiff to the bank is proper despite the fact that the
    Guarantor is willing and able to pay the defendant bank.

    D. It was submitted by the plaintiff that the Benefit of Excussion under


    article 2058-2060 of the civil code could not take place because the
    guarantor did not raise it as a defense. It is also their opinion that, as a
    consequence, the creditor has no right to refuse payment from the
    guarantor. With all due respect, the argument of the plaintiffs is
    misplaced. The failure or refusal of the guarantor to avail of the “benefit
    of excussion” does not necessarily mean that the creditor has no choice
    but to accept payment from the guarantor and cannot proceed against the
    principal debtor if the guarantor is willing to pay.

    The rule contained in the article cited by the plaintiff’s counsel arises from
    the character and nature of the contract of guaranty which is accessory
    and subsidiary. The guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the
    obligation of the principal debtor only in case the latter should fail to do
    so (art. 2047) and cannot do so. The said rule on Excussion only
    determines the propriety of enforcement of payment of obligation against
    the guarantor and it will not affect in any way the right of the creditor to
    proceed against the principal debtor for the satisfaction of the obligation.
    Worth stressing is the fact that the rule is provided under Book IV, title
    xv,chapter 2, sec. 1(Effects of the guaranty between the guarantor
    and the creditor) of the New Civil Code, which could only mean that it
    affects only the relationship of the creditor and the guarantor. Hence, the
    Bank (creditor) correctly proceeded against the plaintiffs (debtor) despite
    the alleged offer of the guarantor to pay the obligation.

    E. Moreover, the court, in its decision, correctly observed that the 4,500
    cavans of palay owned by the plaintiffs, represented by the Quedan
    receipt issued by Quedancor, and which was use as guarantee for the
    payment of the loan obtained by the plaintiffs from the defendant, was
    already withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Further, only 85% of the loan
    obtained by plaintiffs was guaranteed by Quedancor.

    F. In an attempt to lessen its liability, the plaintiffs insist that the contract
    between them and Quedancor is in fact a “contract of surety” and not
    “contract of guaranty”.

    G. Even assuming arguendo, for the sake of argument that the QUEDANCOR
    was actually a “surety”,still, the act of the bank in enforcing the payment
    of the whole obligation against the plaintiffs (ignoring Quedancor’s offer
    to pay) is proper.
    H. The Supreme Court in the case of Heirs of servando vs. Gonzales, g.r
    no. 159709, had the occasion to rule that in a solidary obligation, the
    creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or
    all of them simultaneously. The choice to determine against whom
    the collection is enforced belongs to the creditor until the obligation
    is fully satisfied.
    I. In the instant case, the existence of the obligation is not disputed nor is
    there any evidence presented to prove that such has already been
    cancelled by the new obligation or that another debtor had assumed his
    place. Thus, the Bank correctly proceeded against the plaintiffs for the
    enforcement of the loan obligation (including the P1,500,000.00 loan
    which is being claimed by the plaintiffs as their joint and solidary
    obligation with QUEDANCOR). It is settled that as long as the obligation
    has not been fully satisfied, the creditor (Bank) has the option to proceed
    against either of the solidary debtors (in this case, to the plaintiffs or to
    Quedancor).

    PRAYER

    PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable


    Court to:
    1. Deny deny the motion for reconsideration; and
    2. Grant other reliefs which are just and equitable.

    You might also like