PNB vs CA & Gueco et al
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF
APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was
indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total
sum of P2,379.91. Her indebtedness was a
crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her
sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said
standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in
her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon,
a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr.
Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00. Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged
to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into
had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to
raise the consideration to P2,800.00 informing them that “ the minimum lease
rental acceptable to the bank is 2.80 per picul. Mr. Tuazon agreed to the raising of
consideration and informed the manager that he was ready to pay the said
amount. When the branch manager of the
PNB recommended the approval of the contract of lease at the price of 2.80 to
the board of directors, they required that the amount be be raised to 3.00 per
picul considering that the current price prevailing at the time was 3.00 per
picul. Mr. Tuazon asked for the reconsideration from the board of directors to
approved the 2.80 per picul but to no avail. February 22, 1957 Mr. Tuazon
informed the bank that he is no longer
interested to continue the deal. The agricultural year was about to
expire and Mrs. Tapnio has been unable to utilize her sugar quota. The result
is that Mrs. Tapnio lost the sum of P2,800.00 which she should have received
from Tuazon and which she could have paid the bank to cancel off her
indebtedness.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for the damaged caused?
HELD: Yes, PNB was liable because the failure of the negotiation for
the lease of the sugar allocation of Rita Gueco Tapnio to Tuazon was due to the
fault of the directors of the PNB. The refusal on the part of the bank to
approve lease at the rate of 2.80 per picul would have enabled Rita Gueco
Tapnio to realize the amount of 2,800.00 which was more than sufficient to pay
off indebtedness to the bank. Its insistence on the rental price of 3.00 per
picul brought the rescission of the lease contract. In failing to observe the
reasonable degree care and vigilance which the surrounding circumstances
reasonably impose, the petitioner is consequently liable for the damages.
Article 21 of the New Civil Code “ any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in the manner contrary to morals, good costums or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” A corporation is civilly liable, whenever a
tortuous act is committed bt any officer or agent under express direction or
authority from the stockholders or members acting as a body or generally , from
the directors as the governing body.
Affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment