SECOND DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner, - versus - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. and
RAMON MONFORT, Respondents. x-----------------------------------------x |
G.R.
No. 134728
G.R. No. 134794
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: February
23, 2006 |
|
RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. and
RAMON MONFORT, Petitioners, - versus - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK and
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
These consolidated petitions for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are both aimed against
the same Decision[1] dated July 24, 1998 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
53762, which AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Bacolod City, Branch 41, in its Civil Case No. 2653, an action for Breach of Contract, Damages with Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction, thereat commenced by Ricardo Montinola, Jr. and Ramon
Monfort against the Republic Planters Bank (RPB). While affirming the RTC
decision, the CA reduced the amount of damages and attorney’s fees therein
awarded to the plaintiffs. In its
petition in G.R. No. 134728,
petitioner RPB urges the complete reversal and setting aside of the assailed CA
decision. On the other hand, in their
petition in G.R. No. 134794, petitioners
Montinola, Jr. and Monfort fault the CA for reducing the amount of damages
awarded to them by the trial court, and hence pray for the reinstatement in toto
of the trial court’s decision.
The material facts may be briefly stated, as follows:
Ricardo Montinola, Jr. and Ramon Monfort, plaintiffs in the trial court, are sugarcane planters who have obtained a crop loan credit line with therein defendant RPB for the crop year 1982-1983, having the following balances as of July 1982:
|
Ricardo Montinola, Jr. Account |
|
|
Montinola-Monfort, Inc. Account |
|
On P30,000.00
chargeable against the crop loan credit line of Montinola, Jr. which RPB refused
to release because Montinola and Monfort filed Civil Case No. 16905[2] against
the bank. Thereupon, they immediately
made a formal written demand upon RPB for the release of the balance of their
crop loan, which the bank still adamantly refused.
Thus, on
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully
pray the Honorable Court, upon the filing of such bond as it may fix, to issue
preliminary mandatory injunction ordering defendant to release to plaintiffs
the balances of their loan accounts set out in paragraph 6 above; and after
trial, to render judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant, making
said injunction permanent, and ordering defendant:
(1)
To pay plaintiffs actual damages in such amount as may
be proved at the trial but not less than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(2)
To pay plaintiffs exemplary and moral damages in such
amounts as the Honorable Court may fix but not less than Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00) and One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00),
respectively;
(3)
To pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation in such amount as the Honorable Court may find reasonable but not
less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00);
(4) To grant plaintiffs such other or further relief as may be just and equitable;
(5) With costs against defendant.
In its answer, defendant RPB admits the existence of
the crop loan credit line in favor of plaintiffs Montinola, Jr. and Monfort, as
well as its refusal to release the requested amount of P30,000.00, giving
as justifications therefor the plaintiffs’ alleged violation of the terms and
conditions of the parties’ credit line agreement and their commission of acts
antagonistic and derogatory to parties’ bank-client relationship, evidently
referring to the earlier Civil Case No. 16905, supra. RPB further claimed
that its refusal to release more funds was consistent with its desire to
protect its interest and that of its stockholders.
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered judgment for Montinola, Jr. and Monfort, to wit:
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs having duly proven that they have
suffered actual damages in the amount of P1,500,000.00 defendant is
ordered to pay the same to plaintiffs; by way of moral and exemplary damages in
its wanton and malicious breach of contractual relation, defendant is also
ordered to pay plaintiffs P1,500,000.00 and likewise the payment of
attorney’s fees in the amount of P350,000.00 plus costs.[3]
Forthwith, RPB went to the CA whereat its appellate
recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
53762. As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its decision of
Appellant
Bank, although admitting that it had indeed refused and denied
plaintiff-appellees’ request for the release of P30,000.00 from the crop
credit line, justifies its action by claiming that plaintiffs-appellees had
violated the terms and conditions of their contract agreement by showing that
plaintiffs-appellees had an outstanding debt incurred from the previous crop
year. It appears, however, that
appellant Bank had released several amounts on various occasions during the
early part of 1982 in favor of plaintiffs-appellees pursuant to their crop
credit line, namely the amount of P34,500.00 on January 13, 1982; P44,900.00 on
February 5, 1982; P34,400.00 on February 25, 1982; P8,000.00 on March 2, 1982;
P45,000.00 on March 31, 1982; P45,000.00 on April 19, 1982; P67,500.00 on May
3, 1982 and P31,512.50 on June 9, 1982 (Exh. “5”, “5-A” to “5-G”). Then suddenly without any warning or demand
made upon the plaintiffs-appellees to settle their outstanding unpaid account,
appellant Bank decided to hold any further release of funds and denied
plaintiffs-appellees request for P30,000.00 on July 19, 1982, despite a surplus
in the 1982-1982 crop loan credit availment in the amount of P312,000.00 as
admitted in court by defendant Bank’s witness Pacita Sajo (T.S.N., p. 11,
August 25, 1987). The act of appellant
Bank of treating all of plaintiffs-appellees’ outstanding loan as due and
demandable may be justified under their Chattel Mortgage Contract. However, the appellant Bank unilaterally
decided to stop further release of funds under the credit crop line without
giving notice to plaintiffs-appellees.
Moreover, the reason given by
the Bank officers to plaintiffs-appellees when they inquired about the reason
appellant Bank refused to release the amount of P30,000.00 was that it was because
they had filed a case against the Bank.
They were in fact informed that the budget folder for their account was
forwarded to the Head Office in
Considering all circumstances,
we are convinced that the only reason plaintiffs-appellees credit line was
suspended was because of the case they had filed against appellant Bank. That case was not at all related to plaintiffs-appellees’
credit line. It was a case that arose as
a result of malversation committed by a bank employee which directly affected
the deposit accounts of plaintiffs-appellees and the case was instituted to
recover from appellant Bank the sum of money taken by the bank employee. Verily, appellant Bank had maliciously and in
bad faith unilaterally suspended the credit line of plaintiffs-appellees
thereby justifying the order of the trial court for payment in favor of
plaintiffs-appellees of actual, moral and compensatory damages.
In the same decision, however, the CA, finding no sufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s award of actual damages to the tune of P1,500,000.00,
and as exorbitant the amount of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees, modified the appealed RTC decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award in favor of plaintiffs-appellees
of actual damages is reduced to P500,000.00, moral and exemplary damages
to P500,000.00, and attorney’s fees to P200,000.00.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Therefrom, both parties come to this Court via their respective petitions.
Petitioner RPB in G.R. No. 134728 assigns the following errors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A SERIOUS MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS BY SIMPLY ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER HAD MALICIOUSLY AND IN BAD FAITH, SUSPENDED THE
CREDIT LINE OF RESPONDENTS.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN AWARDING RESPONDENTS P500,000.00
ACTUAL DAMAGES, P500,000.00
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND P200,000.00 ATTORNEY’S FEES, WITHOUT
LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASES, AND EVEN ASSUMING RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, THE AGGREGATE JUDGMENT AWARD IS PATENTLY EXCESSIVE,
DISPROPORTIONATE AND WAY OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
For their part, petitioners Montinola, Jr. and Monfort in G.R. No. 134794 raise the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR NOT THE
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED, OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OF JURISDICTION, IN REDUCING THE AWARD FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE
TOTAL SUM OF P2,150,000.00 –
FROM P3,350,000.00 TO ONLY P1,200,000.00.
The Court finds both petitions lacking in merit.
At the outset, it is noteworthy that RPB raises factual issues which had been resolved unanimously by the trial court and the CA, when both courts concluded that “appellant Bank had maliciously and in bad faith unilaterally suspended the credit line of plaintiffs-appellees [Montinola, Jr. and Monfort] thereby justifying the order of the trial court for payment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees of actual, moral and compensatory damages.”[4] The sufficiency of the evidence on record to support the same is crystal clear. The Court, therefor, needs only to reechoe its ruling in Domingo vs. Robles,[5] to wit:
It is a well-settled principle that factual
findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding
on this Court. Petitioner has given this
Court no cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the contrary, the findings
of the courts a quo are amply
supported by the evidence on record.
As to the CA’s reduction of actual damages from P1,500,000.00
to P500,000.00, the Court agrees with the CA that:
x x x. To prove actual damages, the best evidence
available to the injured party must be presented: the court cannot rely on
uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect but must depend upon competent
proof that damages have been actually suffered. (Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 7456) Appellant
Bank had shown proof that the balance left available to plaintiffs-appellees
under their crop loan as of July 19, 1982 was only minimal; therefore, the
suspension of further release of funds representing such balance could not have
directly affected the entire production for crop year 1982-1983. Also, appellant Bank had shown that
plaintiffs-appellees had already withdrawn a considerable amount of money from
their credit line. Paquita Sajo had
pointed out that as of July of 1982, Montinola had already “withdrawn an amount
of P1,970,000.00, more or less, which covers the cultivation budget,
fertilizer budget, contingency budget and more than 50% of the milling budget
account and the remaining P312,000.00 was only a portion of the said
milling budget.” (T.S.N., pp. 20-21, August 25, 1987) In that case, the amount that was still
available to plaintiffs-appellees was for milling, which should have started
only in September of that year until April of the following year. In other words, the suspension of the release
of funds under the crop loan at most affected only the milling process and not
the cultivation and fertilization process because the money budget for that
purpose had already been withdrawn.
The Civil Code, in its Article 2199, expressly states:
ART. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. (Emphasis supplied.)
The reduced amount of actual damages awarded by the CA complies with the foregoing provision, being the adequate compensation for the pecuniary loss which Montinola, Jr. and Monfort could have possibly suffered under the circumstances established by the evidence proffered. Anything over and above such amount would definitely result in their unjust enrichment at the expense of RPB. The Court will not allow such inequitable situation.
Finally, considering the facts and circumstances
obtaining in this case, the Court finds
no reversible error on the part of the CA in reducing the award for moral and
exemplary damages to the more reasonable amount of P500,000.00, and the
attorney’s fees to P200,000.00.
Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
In fine, the CA correctly exercised its wise discretion by reducing the amounts involved.
On the same breath, RPB’s lament must have to be brushed aside,
given the factual findings, supra, of
the trial court as sustained by the CA.
WHEREFORE, both petitions are DENIED
for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by then Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya (ret.) with Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales (now a member of this Court) and Bernardo P. Abesamis (ret.), concurring; Rollo, G.R. No. 134728, pp. 30-48.
[2] Civil Case No. 16905 is a suit instituted by Montinola, Jr. and Monfort to recover from RPB their money deposits which were malversed by a bank employee.
[3] Quoted from and as reproduced in
the assailed CA decision, see footnote #1, supra.
[4] Decision, p. 15; Rollo, G.R. No. 134728 p. 44.
[5] G.R. No. 153743,