eusebio gonzales v pcib

8/20/2019 Eusebio Gonzales v PCIB

1/12

Page 1 of 12

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 180257 February 23, 2011

EUSEBIO GON!"ES, Petitioner,

vs.

P#I"IPPINE COMMERCI!" !N$ INTERN!TION!" B!N%, E$N! OC!MPO, a&' ROBERTO NOCE$!,

Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

(E"!SCO, )R., J.:

T*e Ca+e

This is an appeal via a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ fro% the Decision& dated October '', '(() of

the !ourt of *ppeals +!* in !*-.R. !V No. )##//, "hich denied petitioner0s appeal fro% the Dece%ber &(, '((&

Decision' in !ivil !ase No. 11-&2'# of the Re3ional Trial !ourt +RT!, 4ranch &25 in Ma6ati !it7. The RT! found

8ustification for respondents0 dishonor of petitioner0s chec6 and found petitioner solidaril7 liable "ith the spouses

9ose and 9ocel7n Panlilio +spouses Panlilio for the three pro%issor7 notes the7 e:ecuted in favor of respondent

Philippine !o%%ercial and International 4an6 +P!I4.

T*e Fa-+

Petitioner usebio on;ales +on;ales "as a client of P!I4 for a 3ood &$ 7ears before he filed the instant case.

SD 5,)&$.)' "ith P!I4.

On October 2(, &11$, on;ales and his "ife obtained a loan for PhP $((,(((. Subse?uentl7, on Dece%ber '/,

&11$ and 9anuar7 2, &111, the spouses Panlilio and on;ales obtained t"o additional loans fro% P!I4 in thea%ounts of PhP &,(((,((( and PhP 2((,(((, respectivel7. These three loans a%ountin3 to PhP &,5((,((( "ere

covered b7 three pro%issor7 notes.# To secure the loans, a real estate %ort3a3e +RM over a parcel of land

covered b7 Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T No. 25(&' "as e:ecuted b7 on;ales and the spouses Panlilio.

Notabl7, the pro%issor7 notes specified, a%on3 others, the solidar7 liabilit7 of on;ales and the spouses Panlilio for

the pa7%ent of the loans. nson +>nson for PhP

'$(,((( dra"n a3ainst the credit line +!Onson due to the dishonor of the chec6. The7 had a heated ar3u%ent

in the pre%ises of the Philippine !olu%bian *ssociation +P!* "here the7 are both %e%bers, "hich caused 3reat

Obligations &

Contract

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt1


2/12

Page 2 of 12

e%barrass%ent and hu%iliation to on;ales. Thereafter, on Nove%ber $, &115, >nson sent a de%and letter $ to

on;ales for the PhP '$(,(((. *nd on Dece%ber 2, &115, the counsel of >nson sent a second de%and letter / to

on;ales "ith the threat of le3al action. @ith his F!D account that P!I4 fro;e, on;ales "as forced to source out

and pa7 the PhP '$(,((( he o"ed to >nson in cash.

On 9anuar7 '5, &111, on;ales, throu3h counsel, "rote P!I4 insistin3 that the chec6 he issued had been full7

funded, and de%anded the return of the proceeds of his F!D as "ell as da%a3es for the un8ust dishonor of thechec6.) P!I4 replied on March '', &111 and stood its 3round in free;in3 on;ales0 accounts due to the outstandin3

dues of the loans.5 On Ma7 '/, &111, on;ales reiterated his de%and, re%indin3 P!I4 that it 6ne" "ell that the

actual borro"ers "ere the spouses Panlilio and he never benefited fro% the proceeds of the loans, "hich "ere

serviced b7 the P!I4 account of the spouses Panlilio. 1

P!I40s refusal to heed his de%ands co%pelled on;ales to file the instant case for da%a3es "ith the RT!, on

account of the alle3ed un8ust dishonor of the chec6 issued in favor of >nson.

T*e Ru/& o -*e RTC

*fter due trial, on Dece%ber &(, '((&, the RT! rendered a Decision in favor of P!I4. The decretal portion readsA

@nson "as proper considerin3 that the credit line under the !Onson,

ratiocinatin3 that P!I4 "as %erel7 e:ercisin3 its ri3hts under the contractual stipulations in the !O


3/12

Page 3 of 12

The Issues

on;ales, as before the !*, raises a3ain the follo"in3 assi3n%ent of errorsA

I - IN NOT !ONSIDRIN TSA

No" in this case 7ou filed a3ainst the ban6 7ou %entioned there "as a loan also applied for b7 the Panlilio0s in the

su% of P&.5 Million Pesos. @ill 7ou please tell this !ourt ho" this ca%e aboutL

ONG*=SA

Mr. Panlilio re?uested his account officer . . . . at that ti%e it is a P#'.( Million loan and if he secures another P&.5

Million loan the release "ill be lon3er because it has to pass to EO.

A *fter that "hat happenedL

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt15


4/12

Page 4 of 12

*A So as per su33estion since Mr. Panlilio is a 3ood friend of %ine and "e co-o"ned the propert7 I a3reed initiall7 to

use %7 na%e so that the loan can be utili;ed i%%ediatel7 b7 Mr. Panlilio.

A @ho is actuall7 the borro"er of this P&.5 Million PesosL

*A @ell, in paper %e and Mr. Panlilio.

A @ho received the proceeds of said loanL

*A Mr. Panlilio.

A Do 7ou have an7 proof that it "as Mr. Panlilio "ho actuall7 received the proceeds of this P&.5 Million Pesos loanL

*A * chec6 "as deposited in the account of Mr. Panlilio.&/

: : : :

A 47 the "a7 upon "hose su33estion "as the loan of Mr. Panlilio also placed under 7our na%e initiall7L

*A @ell it "as actuall7 su33ested b7 the account officer at that ti%e dna Oca%po.

A SA on !ross-:a%inationJ

Is it not a fact that as far as the records of the ban6 areJ concerned the proceeds of the &.5 %illion loan "as

received b7 Mr. PanlilioL

NO!D*A

es sir .&5

The fact that the loans "ere underta6en b7 on;ales "hen he si3ned as borro"er or co-borro"er for the benefit of

the spouses Panlilioas sho"n b7 the fact that the proceeds "ent to the spouses Panlilio "ho "ere servicin3 orpa7in3 the %onthl7 duesis beside the point. For si3nin3 as borro"er and co-borro"er on the pro%issor7 notes

"ith the proceeds of the loans 3oin3 to the spouses Panlilio, on;ales has e:tended an acco%%odation to said

spouses.

Third , as an acco%%odation part7, on;ales is solidaril7 liable "ith the spouses Panlilio for the loans. In Ang v.

Associated Bank ,&1 ?uotin3 the definition of an acco%%odation part7 under Section '1 of the Ne3otiable Instru%ents

=a", the !ourt cited that an acco%%odation part7 is a person "ho has si3ned the instru%ent as %a6er, dra"er,

acceptor, or indorser, "ithout receivin3 value therefor, and for the purpose of lendin3 his na%e to so%e other

person.'( The !ourt further e:plainedA

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt20


5/12

Page 5 of 12

*Jn acco%%odation part7 is one "ho %eets all the three re?uisites, vi;A +& he %ust be a part7 to the instru%ent,

si3nin3 as %a6er, dra"er, acceptor, or indorserC +' he %ust not receive value thereforC and +2 he %ust si3n for the

purpose of lendin3 his na%e or credit to so%e other person. *n acco%%odation part7 lends his na%e to enable the

acco%%odated part7 to obtain credit or to raise %one7C he receives no part of the consideration for the instru%ent

but assu%es liabilit7 to the other part7ies thereto. The acco%%odation part7 is liable on the instru%ent to a holder

for value even thou3h the holder, at the ti%e of ta6in3 the instru%ent, 6ne" hi% or her to be %erel7 an

acco%%odation part7, as if the contract "as not for acco%%odation.

*s petitioner ac6no"led3ed it to be, the relation bet"een an acco%%odation part7 and the acco%%odated part7 is

one of principal and suret7the acco%%odation part7 bein3 the suret7. *s such, he is dee%ed an ori3inal pro%isor

and debtor fro% the be3innin3C he is considered in la" as the sa%e part7 as the debtor in relation to "hatever is

ad8ud3ed touchin3 the obli3ation of the latter since their liabilities are inter"oven as to be inseparable. *lthou3h a

contract of suret7ship is in essence accessor7 or collateral to a valid principal obli3ation, the suret70s liabilit7 to the

creditor is immediate, primary and absoluteC he is directly and equally bound "ith the principal. *s an e?uivalent of a

re3ular part7 to the underta6in3, a suret7 beco%es liable to the debt and dut7 of the principal obli3or even "ithout

possessin3 a direct or personal interest in the obli3ations nor does he receive an7 benefit therefro%.'&

Thus, the 6no"led3e, ac?uiescence, or even de%and b7 Oca%po for an acco%%odation b7 on;ales in order toe:tend the credit or loan of PhP &,5((,((( to the spouses Panlilio does not e:onerate on;ales fro% liabilit7 on the

three pro%issor7 notes.

Fourth, the solidar7 liabilit7 of on;ales is clearl7 stipulated in the pro%issor7 notes "hich unifor%l7 be3in, For

value received, the undersi3ned +the 4ORRO@R o/&-y a&' +e6eray pro%ise to pa7 : : :. Solidar7 liabilit7

cannot be presu%ed but %ust be established b7 la" or contract.'' *rticle &'() of the !ivil !ode pertinentl7 states

that there is solidar7 liabilit7 onl7 "hen the obli3ation e:pressl7 so states, or "hen the obli3ation re?uires solidarit7.

This is true in the instant case "here on;ales, as acco%%odation part7, is i%%ediatel7, e?uall7, and absolutel7

bound "ith the spouses Panlilio on the pro%issor7 notes "hich indubitabl7 stipulated solidar7 liabilit7 for all the

borro"ers. Moreover, the three pro%issor7 notes serve as the contract bet"een the parties. !ontracts have the

force of la" bet"een the parties and %ust be co%plied "ith in 3ood faith.'2

Seo&' I++ue I4roer $/+*o&or o C*e

SD 5,)&$.)' in his F!D account "hich is %ore

than sufficient collateral to 3uarantee the PhP '$(,((( chec6, dated Septe%ber 2(, &115, he issued a3ainst the

credit line.

* careful scrutin7 of the records sho"s that the courts a quo co%%itted reversible error in not findin3 ne3li3ence b7

P!I4 in the dishonor of the PhP '$(,((( chec6.

F/r+-. There "as no proper notice to on;ales of the default and delin?uenc7 of the PhP &,5((,((( loan. It %ust be

borne in %ind that "hile solidaril7 liable "ith the spouses Panlilio on the PhP &,5((,((( loan covered b7 the three

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt25


6/12

Page 6 of 12

pro%issor7 notes, on;ales is onl7 an acco%%odation part7 and as such onl7 lent his na%e and credit to the

spouses Panlilio. @hile not e:oneratin3 his solidar7 liabilit7, on;ales has a ri3ht to be properl7 apprised of the

default or delin?uenc7 of the loan precisel7 because he is a co-si3nator7 of the pro%issor7 notes and of his solidar7

liabilit7.

@e note that it is indeed understandable for on;ales to push the spouses Panlilio to pa7 the outstandin3 dues of

the PhP &,5((,((( loan, since he "as onl7 an acco%%odation part7 and "as not personall7 interested in the loan.Thus, a %eetin3 "as set b7 on;ales "ith the spouses Panlilio and the P!I4 officers, Noceda and Oca%po, in the

spouses Panlilio0s 8e"elr7 shop in SM Me3a%all on October $, &115. >nfortunatel7, the %eetin3 did not push

throu3h due to the heav7 traffic Noceda and Oca%po encountered.

Such 6no"led3e of the default b7 on;ales "as, ho"ever, not enou3h to properl7 apprise on;ales about the

default and the outstandin3 dues. Veril7, it is not enou3h to be %erel7 infor%ed to pa7 over a hundred thousand

"ithout bein3 for%all7 apprised of the e:act a33re3ate a%ount and the correspondin3 dues pertainin3 to specific

loans and the dates the7 beca%e due.

on;ales testified that he "as not dul7 notified about the outstandin3 interest dues of the loanA

*TT. D 9S>SA

No" "hen Mr. Panlilio0s "as encounterin3 proble%s "ith the ban6 did the defendant ban6 adviseJ 7ou of an7

proble% "ith the sa%e accountL

ONG*=SA

The7 never advisedJ %e in "ritin3.

A


7/12


8/12

Page 8 of 12

The !OSA on !ross-:a%inationJ

No" "e 3o to the other credit facilit7 "hich is the credit on hand e:tended solel7 of course to Mr. usebio on;ales"ho is the plaintiff here, Mr. Panlilio is not included in this credit on hand facilit7. Did I 3ather fro% 7ou as per 7our

:hibit ) as of October ', &115 7ou "ere the one "ho reco%%ended the cancellation of this credit on hand facilit7L

NPOM>!NOA

It "as reco%%ended b7 the account officer and I supported it.

A *nd 7ou approved itL

*A es sir.

A Did 7ou infor% Mr. on;ales that 7ou have alread7 cancelled his credit on hand facilit7L

*A *s far as I 6no", it is the account officer "ho "ill infor% hi%.

A 4ut 7ou have no record that he "as infor%edL

*A I don0t recall and "e have to loo6 at the folder to deter%ine if the7 "ere infor%ed.

A If 7ou "ill notice, this letter . . . "hat do 7ou call this letter of 7oursL

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt33


9/12

Page 9 of 12

*A That is our letter advisin3 the% or re%indin3 the% of their unpaid interest and that if he is able to update his

interest he can e:tend the pro%issor7 note or restructure the outstandin3.

A No", I call 7our attention %ada% "itness, there is nothin3 in this letter to the clients advisin3 the% or Mr.

on;ales that his credit on hand facilit7 "as alread7 cancelledL

*A I don0t 6no" if there are other letters aside fro% this.

A So in this letter there is nothin3 to infor% or to %a6e Mr. usebio a"are that his credit on hand facilit7 "as

alread7 cancelledL

*A No actuall7 he can understand it fro% the last sentence. If 7ou "ill be able to update 7our outstandin3 interest,

"e can appl7 the e:tention of 7our pro%issor7 note so in other "ords "e are sa7in3 that if 7ou don0t, 7ou cannot

e:tend the pro%issor7 note.

A ou "ill notice that the sub8ect %atter of this October ', &115 letter is onl7 the loan of &.5 %illion is it not, as 7ou

can see fro% the letterL O6a7L

*A *h . . .

A O6a7. There is nothin3 there that "ill sho" that that also refers to the credit on hand facilit7 "hich "as bein3

utili;ed b7 Mr. on;ales is it notL

*A 4ut I don0t 6no" if there are other letters that are not presented to %e no".2#

The fore3oin3 testi%onies of P!I4 officers clearl7 sho" that not onl7 did P!I4 fail to 3ive prior notice to on;ales

about the Offerin3 Tic6et for the process of ter%ination, suspension, or revocation of the credit line under the

!O


10/12

Page 10 of 12

absolute unilateral ri3ht to P!I4, as the7 are ?ualified b7 the other stipulations in the contracts or specific

circu%stances, li6e in the instant case of an acco%%odation part7.

The pro%issor7 notes unifor%l7 provideA

The e&'er /+ *ereby au-*or/9e', a- /-+ o-/o& a&' :/-*ou- &o-/e, -o +e- o or ay -o -*e ay4e&- o -*/+

No-e a&y a&' a 4o&ey+ :*/* 4ay be /& /-+ *a&'+ o& 'eo+/- or o-*er:/+e beo&/& -o -*e Borro:er . The4orro"er irrevocabl7 appoints the =ender, effective upon the nonpa7%ent of this Note on de%andat %aturit7 or

upon the happenin3 of an7 of the events of default, but "ithout an7 obli3ation on the =ender0s part should it choose

not to perfor% this %andate, as the attorne7-in-fact of the 4orro"er, to sell and dispose of an7 propert7 of the

4orro"er, "hich %a7 be in the =ender0s possession b7 public or private sale, and to appl7 the proceeds thereof to

the pa7%ent of this NoteC the 4orro"er, ho"ever, shall re%ain liable for an7 deficienc7.#& +%phasis ours.

The above provisos are indeed ?ualified "ith the specific circu%stance of an acco%%odation part7 "ho, as such,

has not been servicin3 the pa7%ent of the dues of the loans, and %ust first be properl7 apprised in "ritin3 of the

outstandin3 dues in order to ans"er for his solidar7 obli3ation.

The sa%e is true for the !Onson.

@ith ban6s, the de3ree of dili3ence re?uired is %ore than that of a 3ood father of the fa%il7 considerin3 that the

business of ban6in3 is i%bued "ith public interest due to the nature of their function. The la" i%poses on ban6s a

hi3h de3ree of obli3ation to treat the accounts of its depositors "ith %eticulous care, al"a7s havin3 in %ind the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_180257_2011.html#fnt43


11/12

Page 11 of 12

fiduciar7 nature of ban6in3.##


12/12

Page 12 of 12

co%%itted.$$Thus, an a"ard of PhP $(,((( is reasonable %oral da%a3es for the un8ust dishonor of the PhP '$(,(((

"hich "as the pro:i%ate cause of the conse?uent hu%iliation, e%barrass%ent, an:iet7, and %ental an3uish

suffered b7 on;ales fro% his loss of credibilit7 a%on3 his friends, collea3ues and peers.

Further%ore, the initial carelessness of the ban60s o%ission in not properl7 infor%in3 on;ales of the outstandin3

interest duesBBa33ravated b7 its 3ross ne3lect in o%ittin3 to 3ive prior notice as stipulated under the !O

eusebio gonzales v pcib

Documents