PNB vs CA and Delfin Perez

Spouses Solomon obtained a loan from petitioner bank which was secured by a
real mortgage.
The spouses failed to pay the loan and the mortgage was foreclosed.
After the execution of the Cert. of Sale, the bank represented by its branch
manager Amado Cortez, entered into a contract with the spouses denominated
as "PROMESA De VENTA". it is a contract whereby the bank, as the owner of
the property, bound itself to sell to the Solomon spouses for consideration of
P802.26 all its rights, title and interest to the said property payable in 8 equal
annual ammortizations.
the spouses complied with the contract until their death in 1943.
Delfin Perez was allowed to continue the remaining obligation of his parents but
the bank asked him to equal the offer of the Spouses Castro, the prospective
buyers of the property. Delfin failed to equal the offer, thus the property was sold
to Spouses Castro.
Delfin filed a complaint for specific performance to accept the payment of the
outstanding balance in accordance with the "promesa de venta" and damages
against the bank.
The bank argued that it is not bound by the acts of its branch manager.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the bank can be held liable to Delfin Perez?

Held:

Yes.

On equitable principles, particularly on the ground of estoppel, we must rule against

petitioner Bank. "The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy,
fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his
own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were
directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from
equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the
administration of justice where, bee without its aid injustice might result'. It has n applied
by this Court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demand.

Perez justifiably and reasonably relied upon the assurance of the Bank's Manager that
he would be allowed to pay the remaining obligation of his deceased parents and he
acted on that basis. Even fair dealing alone would have requited the Bank to abide by
its representations, but Id did not. Clearly, the equities of the case are with Perez.

The Bank's argument that it is not bound by the acts of its Branch Manager in
Davao, is not well taken for well settled is the rule that if a private corporation
intentionally or negligently clothes its officers or agents with apparent power to
perform acts for it, the corporation will be estopped to deny that such apparent
authority is real as to innocent third persons dealing in good faith with such
officers or agents.