Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 115849. January 24, 1996.
____________________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
260
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
261
262
original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief
being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to
enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the obligation to sell
the property to respondent. In Danville Maritime, Inc. vs.
Commission on Audit, this Court ruled that the filing by a party
of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective,
constituted forum shopping.
263
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
264
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
265
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
266
Same; Same; Same; Central Bank Law (R.A. 265); Section 28-
A of R.A. 265 merely gives the conservator power to revoke
contracts that are, under existing law, deemed to be defective—the
conservator merely takes the place of a bank’s board of directors,
and what the said board cannot do, the conservator cannot do
either.—Obviously,
267
268
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
PANGANIBAN, J.:
1
peals in CA-G.R. CV No. 35756 and the Resolution
promulgated June 14, 1994 denying the motion for
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
270
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
the same deed and transfer of the six (6) titles in the
names of the plaintiffs;
“3. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
plaintiffs Jose A. Janolo and Demetrio Demetria the sums
of P200,000.00 each in moral damages;
“4. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
“5. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the
plaintiffs the amount of P400,000.00 for and by way of
attorney’s fees;
“6. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
severally, actual and moderate damages in the amount of
P20,000.00;
The Parties
petition.
The Facts
Gentlemen:
____________________________
272
September 1, 1987
J-P M-P GUTIERREZ ENTERPRISES
142 Charisma St., Doña Andres II
Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila
Attention: JOSE O. JANOLO
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your letter-offer to buy our six (6)
parcels of acquired lots at Sta. Rosa, Laguna (formerly
owned by Byme Industrial Corp.). Please be informed
however that the bank’s counter-offer is at P5.5 million
for more than 101 hectares on lot basis.
We shall be very glad to hear your position on the
matter.
Best regards.
“(4) On September 17, 1987, plaintiff Janolo,
responding to Rivera’s aforequoted reply, wrote (Exh.
“D”):
273
274
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
275
PRODUCERS BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Paseo de Roxas,
Makati, Metro Manila
Attn.: Atty. NIDA ENCARNACION
Central Bank Conservator
Gentlemen:
We are sending you herewith, in-behalf of our client,
Mr. JOSE O. JANOLO, MBTC Check No. 258387 in
the amount of P5.5 million as our agreed purchase
price of the 101-hectare lot covered by TCT Nos.
106932, 106933, 106934, 106935, 106936 and 106937
and registered under Producers Bank.
This is in connection with the perfected agreement
consequent from your offer of P5.5 Million as the
purchase price of the said lots. Please inform us of the
date of documentation of the sale immediately.
276
I.
II.
____________________________
278
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
III.
IV.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
____________________________
279
The Issues
280
9
Without Prejudice.”
Private respondent Ejercito vigorously argues that in
spite of this verification, petitioners are guilty of actual
forum shopping because the instant petition pending before
this Court involves “identical parties or interests
represented, rights asserted and reliefs sought (as that)
currently pending before the Regional Trial Court, Makati
Branch 134 in the Second Case. In fact, the issues in the
two cases are so intertwined that a judgment or resolution 10
in either case will constitute res judicata in the other.”
11
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
11
On the other hand, petitioners explain that there is no
forum-shopping because:
____________________________
9 Rollo, p. 96.
10 Memorandum for Respondent, pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 1077-1078.
11 Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 31-36; rollo, pp. 998-1003.
281
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
282
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
283
“There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC
Case No. 86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity of
rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding particulars
is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata
in the action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of
auter action pendant.”
____________________________
17 155 SCRA 566, at pp. 568 and 575 (November 12, 1987).
18 Villanueva vs. Adre, 178 SCRA 876, at p. 882 (April 27, 1989). Also
cited in Crisostomo vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, 179 SCRA
146 (November 6, 1989), and Earth Minerals Exploration, Inc. vs.
Macaraig, Jr., 194 SCRA 1 (February 11, 1991).
19 145 SCRA 34 (October 13, 1986).
284
x x x x x x
“As already observed, there is between the action at bar and
RTC Case No. 86-36563, an identity as regards parties, or
interests represented, rights asserted and relief sought, as well as
basis thereof, to a degree sufficient to give rise to the ground for
dismissal known as auter action pendant or lis pendens. That
same identity puts into operation the sanction of twin dismissals
just mentioned. The application of this sanction will prevent any
further delay in the settlement of the controversy which might
ensue from attempts to seek reconsideration of or to appeal from
the Order of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 86-36563
promulgated on July 15, 1986, which dismissed the petition upon
grounds which appear persuasive.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
20 In Buan vs. Lopez, supra, the Court expressly ruled: “That same
identity puts into operation the sanction of twin dismissals just
mentioned.”
285
21
complaint in the Second Case seeks to declare such
purported sale involving the same real property “as
unenforceable as against the Bank,” which is the petitioner
herein. In other words, in the Second Case, the majority
stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to
accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original
case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief
being sought, though worded differently, is the same,
namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the
obligation to sell the property to respondent.
22
In Danville
Maritime, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, this Court ruled
that the filing by a party of two apparently different
actions, but with the same objective, constituted forum
shopping:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
286
23
In an earlier case, but with the same logic and vigor, we
held:
“In other words, the filing by the petitioners of the instant special
civil action for certiorari and prohibition in this Court despite the
pendency of their action in the Makati Regional Trial Court, is a
species of forum-shopping. Both actions unquestionably involve
the same transactions, the same essential facts and
circumstances. The petitioners’ claim of absence of identity simply
because the PCGG had not been impleaded in the RTC suit, and
the suit did not involve certain acts which transpired after its
commencement, is specious. In the RTC action, as in the action
before this Court, the validity of the contract to purchase and sell
of September 1, 1986, i.e., whether or not it had been efficaciously
rescinded, and the propriety of implementing the same (by paying
the pledgee banks the amount of their loans, obtaining the release
of the pledged shares, etc.) were the basic issues. So, too, the relief
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
287
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
288
knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and
isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders
who compose it will be lifted to allow for25 its consideration
merely as an aggregation of individuals.”
26
In addition to the many cases where the corporate
fiction has been disregarded, we now add the instant case,
and declare herewith that the corporate veil cannot be used
to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition
against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as
the majority in direct actions or as the minority in a
derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court
processes, particularly where, as in this case, the
corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously
prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
25 Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Ferrer, 25 SCRA 845, (October 29, 1968),
at pp. 857-858.
26 This Court has pierced the veil of corporate fiction in numerous cases
where it was used, among others, to avoid a judgment credit (Sibagat
Timber Corp. vs. Garcia, 216 SCRA 470 [December 11, 1992]; Tan Boon
Bee & Co., Inc. vs. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205 [June 30, 1988]); to avoid
inclusion of corporate assets as part of the estate of a decedent (Cease vs.
CA, 93 SCRA 483 [October 18, 1979]); to avoid liability arising from debt
(Arcilla vs. CA, 215 SCRA 120 [October 23, 1992]); Philippine Bank of
Communications vs. CA, 195 SCRA 567 [March 22, 1991]); or when made
use of as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate issues
(Jacinto vs. CA, 198 SCRA 211 [June 6, 1991]); or to promote unfair
objectives or otherwise to shield them (Villanueva vs. Adre, 172 SCRA 876
[April 27, 1989]).
289
“The rule has not been extended to a defendant who, for reasons
known only to him, commences a new action against the plaintiff
—instead of filing a responsive pleading in the other case—setting
forth therein, as causes of action, specific denials, special and
affirmative defenses or even counterclaims. Thus, Velhagen’s and
King’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 91-2069 by no means
negates the charge of forum-shopping as such did not exist in the
first place.” (italics supplied)
____________________________
290
filed the Second Case are not before us; thus the rudiments
of due process prevent us from motu proprio imposing
disciplinary measures against them in this Decision.
However, petitioners themselves (and particularly Henry
Co, et al.) as litigants are admonished to strictly follow the
rules against forum-shopping and not to trifle with court
proceedings and processes. They are warned that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.
Having said that, let it be emphasized that this petition
should be dismissed not merely because of forum-shopping
but also because of the substantive issues raised, as will be
discussed shortly.
____________________________
291
A: The procedure runs this way: Acquired assets was turned over
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
292
Q: When you went to the Producers Bank and talked with Mr.
Mercurio Rivera, did you ask him point-blank his authority to
sell any property?
A: No, sir. Not point blank although it came from him. (W)hen I
asked him how long it would take because he was saying that
the matter of pricing will be passed upon by the committee.
And when I asked him how long it will take for the committee
to decide and he said the committee meets every week. If I am
not mistaken Wednesday and in about two week’s (sic) time,
in effect what he was saying he was not the one who was to
decide. But he would refer it to the committee and he would
relay the decision of the committee to me.
Q: Please answer the question.
A: He did not say that he had the authority(.) But he said he
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
293
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
294
____________________________
295
“A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of
the bank or in the course of dealings of the officers in their representative
capacity but not for acts outside the scope of their authority (9 C.J.S., p.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
417). A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence
will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to
perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be
permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no
benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114).
Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons
where the representation is made in the course of its business by an
agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the
particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and
attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person,
for his own ultimate benefit (McIntosh v. Dakota Trust Co., 52 ND 752,
204 NW 818, 40 ALR 1021).
____________________________
296
11);
(d) Rivera signed the letter dated September 1, 1987
offering to sell the property for P5.5 million (TSN,
July 30, p. 11);
(e) Rivera received the letter dated September 17, 1987
containing the buyers’ proposal to buy the property
for P4.25 million (TSN, July 30, 1990, p. 12);
(f) Rivera, in a telephone conversation, confirmed that
the P5.5 million was the final price of the Bank
(TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 18);
(g) Rivera arranged the meeting between the buyers
and Luis Co on September 28, 1994, during which
the Bank’s offer of P5.5 million was confirmed by
Rivera (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 34-35). At said
meeting, Co, a major shareholder and officer of the
Bank, confirmed Rivera’s statement as to the
finality of the Bank’s counter-offer of P5.5 million
(TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 21; TSN, April 26, 1990,
p. 35);
(h) In its newspaper advertisements and
announcements, the Bank referred to Rivera as the
officer acting for the Bank in relation to parties
interested in buying assets owned/acquired by the
Bank. In fact, Rivera was the officer
297
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
298
34
extinguished the Bank’s offer of P5.5 million. They
disputed the respondent Court’s finding that “there was a
meeting of minds when on 30 September 1987 Demetria
and Janolo through Annex ‘L’ (letter dated September 30,
1987) ‘accepted’ Rivera’s counter offer of P5.5 million under
Annex ‘J’ (letter
35
dated September 17, 1987),” 36
citing the late
Justice Paras, Art. 1319 of the Civil Code and related 37
Supreme Court rulings starting with Beaumont vs. Prieto.
However, the above-cited authorities and precedents
cannot apply in the instant case because, as found by the
respondent Court which reviewed the testimonies on this
point, what was “accepted” by Janolo in his letter dated
September 30, 1987 was the Bank’s offer of P5.5 million as
confirmed and reiterated to Demetria and Atty. Jose
Fajardo by Rivera and Co during their meeting on
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
299
38
their position of P5.5 million.” However, both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals found petitioners’
testimonial evidence “not credible,” and we find no basis for
changing this finding of fact.
Indeed, we see no reason to disturb the lower courts’
(both the RTC and the CA) common finding that private
respondents’ evidence is more in keeping with truth and
logic—that during the meeting on September 28, 1987,
Luis Co and Rivera “confirmed that the P5.5 million price
has been passed upon by the Committee and could no 39
longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35).”
Hence, assuming arguendo that the counter-offer of P4.25
million extinguished the offer of P5.5 million, Luis Co’s
reiteration of the said P5.5 million price during the
September 28, 1987 meeting revived the said offer. And by
virtue of the September 30, 1987 letter accepting this
revived offer, there was a meeting of the minds, as the
acceptance in said letter was absolute and unqualified.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
300
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
40 Berin vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 508, 512 (February 27, 1991).
41 The Reparations Commission vs. The Visayan Packing Corporation,
193 SCRA 531, 539-540 (February 6, 1991).
42 At p. 75; rollo, p. 83.
301
302
A Yes, sir. I think it was September 28, 1987 and I was again
present because Atty. Demetria told me to accompany him and
we were able to meet Luis Co at the Bank.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Now, what transpired during this meeting with Luis Co of the
Producers Bank?
A Atty. Demetria asked Mr. Luis Co whether the price could be
reduced, sir.
Q What price?
A The 5.5 million pesos and Mr. Luis Co said that the amount
cited by Mr. Mercurio Rivera is the final price and that is the
price they intends (sic) to have, sir.
Q What do you mean?
A That is the amount they want, sir.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
——O——
303
______O______
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
43 Dihiansan vs. CA, 153 SCRA 713 (September 14, 1987); Anchuelo vs.
IAC, 147 SCRA 434 (January 29, 1987); Dulos Realty & Development
Corp. vs. CA, 157 SCRA 425 (January 28, 1988); Ramos vs. IAC, 175
SCRA 70 (July 5, 1989); Gevero vs. IAC, 189 SCRA 201 (August 30, 1990);
The Reparations Commission vs. The Visayan Packing Corporation, 193
SCRA 531, 540 (February 6, 1991).
305
306
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
LEONIDA T. ENCARNACION
Acting Conservator”
____________________________
307
‘The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised
in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
“The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the
Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law
imputed to it, its findings of the fact being conclusive” [Chan vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737, reiterating a
long line of decisions]. This Court has emphatically de-
____________________________
308
clared that “it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze
or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being
limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been
committed by the lower court” [Tiongco v. De la Merced, G.R. No.
L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA
596]’ “Barring, therefore, a showing that the findings complained
of are totally devoid of support in the record, or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion,
such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected or
required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary
evidence submitted by the parties” [Santa Ana, Jr. v. Hernandez,
G.R. No. L-16394, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 973] [at pp. 144-
145.]’ ”
46
Likewise, in Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, we held:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
“The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the
trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the
exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by
the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when
the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible;
when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
facts; when the judgment is
____________________________
309
In the same vein, the ruling of this Court in the recent case
of South Sea Surety and 48
Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Hon.
Court of Appeals, et al. is equally applicable to the present
case:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on
the matter coincide.” (italics supplied)
____________________________
310
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35)” (p.
15, CA Decision).
____________________________
311
Epilogue
____________________________
52 Vide Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 1988 ed., Vol. I, pp. 352-
353. See also Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
312
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
____________________________
313
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
for only P3,033,264.00 and (b) in a suit for deficiency judgment against
the property’s former owner and mortgage debtor, the petitioner Bank
maintained that the value of the property was only P3 million.
314
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/57
8/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca858384f33f49646003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/57