Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

Upload DBP Monet Promissory Note

This document discusses two court cases involving Land Bank of the Phils. v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp. and Ambray, et al., v. Tsourous, et al. In the first case, Land Bank sued Monet and guarantors Tagle for over P11 million in debt related to a credit line agreement. Monet counterclaimed that Land Bank mismanaged funds and damaged their business. The RTC ruled in Land Bank's favor but for only P2.5 million based on exhibit 39, a small portion of the total claimed debt. On remand, Land Bank tried to present additional evidence of over P11 million owed but was denied. In the second case, the document discusses how entries

Uploaded by

Julrey Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

Upload DBP Monet Promissory Note

This document discusses two court cases involving Land Bank of the Phils. v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp. and Ambray, et al., v. Tsourous, et al. In the first case, Land Bank sued Monet and guarantors Tagle for over P11 million in debt related to a credit line agreement. Monet counterclaimed that Land Bank mismanaged funds and damaged their business. The RTC ruled in Land Bank's favor but for only P2.5 million based on exhibit 39, a small portion of the total claimed debt. On remand, Land Bank tried to present additional evidence of over P11 million owed but was denied. In the second case, the document discusses how entries

Uploaded by

Julrey Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Land Bank of the Phils. v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No.

184971, April 19,


2010
Ambray, et al., v. Tsourous, et al., G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016

On June 25, 1981 the petitioner and respondent Monet executed an Export Packing Credit Line Agreement
(Agreement) under which the bank gave Monet a credit line of P250,000.00, secured by a continuing guaranty
executed by respondent spouses Vicente V. Tagle, Sr. and Ma. Consuelo G. Tagle (the Tagles), and a third-party
mortgage executed by one Pepita C. Mendigoria. Land Bank renewed and amended this credit line agreement
several times until it reached a ceiling of P5 million.

Land Bank claims that Monet’s obligation under the Agreement had swelled to P11,464,246.19. Since
Monet failed to pay despite demands, the bank filed a collection suit against Monet and the Tagles before RTC
Manila. In their answer, Monet and the Tagles claimed that Land Bank had refused to collect the receivables on
Monet’s export letter of credit against Wishbone Trading Company of Hong Kong while making an unauthorized
payment on its import letter of credit to Beautilike (H.K.) Ltd. This damaged Monets business interests since it ran
short of funds to carry on with its usual business. In other words, Land Bank mismanaged its clients affairs under the
Agreement.

After trial or on July 15, 1997 the RTC rendered a decision ordering respondents to pay Land Bank their
obligation to the latter as reflected in Exhibit 39. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Land Bank filed a petition for review with this Court and on March 10, 2005 the Court rendered a Decision
that, among other things, remanded the case to the RTC for the reception of additional evidence. The pertinent
portion reads:
In remanding the case, the Court noted that Exhibit 39, the Summary of Availment and Schedule of
Amortization, on which both the RTC and the CA relied, covered only Monet’s debt of P2.5 million under Promissory
Note P-981, a small amount compared to the P11,464,246.19 that Land Bank sought to collect from it. The records
showed, however, that Monet executed not only one but several promissory notes in varying amounts in favor of the
bank.

On remand, the RTC held one hearing on October 30, 2006, at which the lawyer of Land Bank told the court
that, apart from what the bank already adduced in evidence, it had no additional documents to present. Based on
this, the RTC issued an order on the same day, affirming its original decision. In effect, the RTC stood by Exhibit 39
as the basis of its finding that Monet and the Tagles owed Land Bank only P2.5 million as opposed to the latter’s
claim of P11,464,246.19.

Land Bank filed a motion to reopen the hearing, to enable it to adduce in evidence a Consolidated Billing
Statement as of October 31, 2006 to show how much Monet and the Tagles still owed the bank. But the trial court
denied the motion. Land Bank appealed the order to the CA but the latter rendered a decision on May 30, 2008
affirming the RTC orders.

Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity are
calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely
balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind of
records.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy