ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 138960.
INSULAR INVESTMENT vs. PNB
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information,
is a resolution of this Court dated
G.R. No. 138960 ( INSULAR INVESTMENT AND TRUST CORPORATION, vs. PNB REPUBLIC BANK.)
For our resolution is the instant
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Order
[1]
cralaw dated
The allegations of the complaint [2] cralaw filed by the PNB Republic Bank, respondent, against the Insular Investment and Trust Corporation, petitioner, are partly reproduced hereunder:
xxx
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3. That on March 1, 1994, the plaintiff purchased on "outright
purchase basis" from the defendant Treasury Bills with face value of
TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00)
at a price of NINETEEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY SIX
AND 59/100 PESOS (P19,410,546.59), as
evidenced by its Confirmation Purchase (COP) No. 2424 and the defendant's
Confirmation of Sale (COS) No. 7716.
Copies of the aforementioned Confirmation of Purchase and Confirmation of Sale issued by plaintiff and defendant are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B", respectively, and made integral parts of this Complaint.
4. That the purchase price of the foregoing transaction was set off
against the sale also on March 1, 1994 by the plaintiff to the defendant of
Treasury Bills with the face value of TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00) and a sale price of
NINETEEEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVENTHOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN AND 63/100
PESOS (P19,997,111.63) as evidenced
by the Confirmation of Sale No. 4345
issued by the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant paid to the plaintiff a net
amount of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE AND 04/100
PESOS (P586,565.04) covered by
Manager's Check No. 62448 issued by the Bank of Commerce.
Copies of the Confirmation of Purchase No. 7707, Confirmation of Sale No. 4345, and Manager's Check No. 61448 are attached as Annexes "C", "D" and "E", respectively, and made integral parts hereof.
5. That despite repeated demands, the defendant failed and refused
and still fails and refuses, to deliver to the plaintiff the said fully paid
Treasury Bills with total face value of TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00) up to the present, without
legal and justifiable reasons.
6. That the total claim of the plaintiff on the aforementioned
Treasury Bills is P20,423,194.44 as of
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7. That on March 15, 1994, the plaintiff purchased on
"outright purchase basis" from the defendant Treasury Bills with face
value of FIFTY MILLION PESOS (P50,000,000.00)
at a price of FORTY EIGHT MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN AND 67/100 PESOS (P48,530,747.67), as evidenced by
plaintiff's Confirmation Purchase (COP) No. 2441 and the defendant's
Confirmation of Sale (COS) No. 8073.
Copies of the aforementioned Confirmation of Purchase and Confirmation of Sale issued by plaintiff and defendant are hereto attached as Annexes "F" and "G", respectively, and made integral parts hereof.
8. That the purchase price of the foregoing transaction as aforestated in paragraph 7 was set off against the sale
also on March 15, 1994 by the plaintiff to the defendant of Treasury Bills with
the total face value of FIFTY MILLION PESOS (P50,000,000.00)
and a sale price of FORTY NINE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR AND 45/100 PESOS (P49,993,334.45)
as evidenced by the Confirmation of Purchase No. 8064 issued by the defendant
and the Confirmation of Sale No. 4373 issued by the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant paid to the
plaintiff a net amount of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX AND 78/100 PESOS (P1,462,586.78) covered by Manager's Check
No. 61580 issued by the Bank of Commerce.
Copies of the Confirmation of Purchase No. 8064, Confirmation of Sale No. 4373, and Manager's Check No. 61580 are attached as Annexes "H", "I" and "J", respectively and made integral parts hereof.
9. That despite repeated demands, the defendant failed and refused,
and still fails and refuses, to deliver to the plaintiff the said fully PAID
Treasury Bills with total face value of FIFTY MILLION PESOS (P50,000,000.00) up to the present, without
legal and justifiable reasons;
10. That the total claim of plaintiff on the aforementioned
Treasury Bills is P50,799,392.36 as of
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11. That on March 18,
1994, the plaintiff purchased on "outright purchase basis" from the
defendant Treasury Bills with face value of TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00) at a price of NINETEEN
MILLION THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE AND
42/100 PESOS (P19,387,533.42), as
evidenced by plaintiff's Confirmation Purchase (COP) No. 2448 and the defendant's
Confirmation of Sale (COS) No. 8181.
Copies of the aforementioned Confirmation of Purchase and Confirmation of Sale issued by plaintiff and defendant are hereto attached as Annexes "K" and "L", respectively, and made integral parts hereof.
12. That the purchase
price of the foregoing transaction as aforestated in
paragraph 11 was set off against the sale also on March 18, 1994 by the
plaintiff to the defendant of Treasury Bills with the total face value of
TWENTY FIVE MILLION PESOS (P25,000,000.00)
and a sale price of TWENTY FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED FORTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED EIGHT AND 51/100 PESOS (P24.946.808.51)
which is covered by plaintiff's Confirmation of Sale No. 4392 and defendant's
Confirmation Purchase No. 8148 issued by the plaintiff. As a result, the
defendant paid to the plaintiff a net amount of FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY
NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND 09/100 PESOS (P5,559,275.09) covered by Manager's Check No. 61632 issued by the
Bank of Commerce.
Copies of the Confirmation of Purchase No. 8184, Confirmation of Sale No. 4382, and Manager's Check No. 61632 are attached as Annexes "M", "N" and "O", respectively and made integral parts hereof.
13. That despite repeated
demands, the defendant failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to
deliver to the plaintiff the said fully paid Treasury Bills with total face
value of TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00)
up to the present, without legal and justifiable reasons;
14. That the total claim
of plaintiff on the aforementioned Treasury Bills is P20,255,833.33 as of
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15. That a result of defendant's failure and refusal to deliver the aforesaid Treasury Bills and/or to pay plaintiffs claims as set out in the First, Second and Third Cause of Action, the plaintiff was constrained to avail of the services of counsel and thereby incur expenses in the form of attorney's fees and litigation expenses which for the purposes of this Complaint is fixed at ten percent (10%) of the total amount due from the defendant, for which the latter should be held liable to plaintiff;
16. By way of example and
as a deterrent to those similarly inclined as defendant, the latter should be
held liable to the plaintiff for exemplary and/or corrective damages in the
amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00).
Petitioner herein filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondent's allegations do not state a cause of action. It contends that respondent has not paid petitioner the purchase price of the Treasury Bills (T-Bills), hence, the same can not be delivered to him. Furthermore, there is no allegation that respondent has delivered the T-Bills bought by petitioner that would warrant a set-off of the obligation of the parties toward each other.
On
Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied by the trial court in its Order dated
Hence, the instant petition.
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party, the defendant, in violation of the legal right of the other. [4] cralaw Its essential elements are:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. [5] cralaw
A cause of action is sufficient where a valid judgment may be rendered thereon based on the alleged facts admitted or proved. [6] cralaw
Hence, to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action alleged in Civil Case No. 95-73111, we must examine its allegations.
The first, second and third causes of
action state that respondent and petitioner are buyers of T-Bills from each
other; that respondent purchased from petitioner T-Bills at specified amounts;
that the purchase price of the T-Bills bought by respondent from petitioner has
been set-off by the amount corresponding to the sale of T-Bills by petitioner
to respondent; that despite full payment of the T-Bills by respondent and
notwithstanding repeated demands, petitioner failed to deliver to the former
the "said fully paid T-Bills;" that respondent's total claim on the
T-Bills under the first cause of action is P20,423,194.44;
that under the second cause of action, its total claim on the T-Bills is P50,799,392.36; that under the third cause
of action, its total claim on the T-Bills is P20,255,833.33,
all as of July 20, 1994; and that due to petitioner's unjust refusal to deliver
the fully paid T-Bills to respondent, the latter was constrained to hire the
services of counsel.
Obviously, all the elements of a cause of action earlier mentioned are present here.
From the allegations of the complaint, it appears that respondent is claiming the right to take possession of the T-Bills it purchased from petitioner.
On the part of petitioner, the complaint states that it is under obligation to respect or not to violate such right considering that it has been fully compensated by respondent.
The complaint also alleges that petitioner breached its obligation to deliver the said T-Bills to respondent, prompting the latter to litigate with the assistance of counsel for a fee.
Clearly, respondent's allegations in his complaint in Civil Case No. 95-73111 state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
The assailed Orders dated
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 26-27.
[2] cralaw Id. at 29-34.
[3] cralaw Id. at 27.
[4] cralaw Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135548, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 485; Centeno v. Centeno , G.R. No. 140825, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 153.
[5] cralaw Relucio v. Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2001, 373 SCRA 578, citing Centeno v. Centeno, id.
[6] cralaw Racoma v. Fortich , 148-A Phil. 454,460 (1971), citing Amedo v. Rio, 92 Phil. 214 (1952).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
