SECOND DIVISION

 

 

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI

 

G.R. No. 178610

BANKING CORP., LTD. STAFF

 

 

RETIREMENT PLAN, (now HSBC

 

Present:

Retirement Trust Fund, Inc.)

 

 

                                    Petitioner,

 

 

 

 

 

 

                             - versus -      

 

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

NACHURA,

PERALTA,

ABAD, and

MENDOZA, JJ.

 

 

 

 

SPOUSES BIENVENIDO AND EDITHA

 

Promulgated:

BROQUEZA,

 

 

                                   Respondents.

 

November 17, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  x

 

 

D E C I S I O N

 

CARPIO, J.:

 

          G.R. No. 178610 is a petition for review[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 30 March 2006 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62685.  The appellate court granted the petition filed by Fe Gerong (Gerong) and Spouses Bienvenido and Editha Broqueza (spouses Broqueza) and dismissed the consolidated complaints filed by Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. - Staff Retirement Plan (HSBCL-SRP) for recovery of sum of money.  The appellate court reversed and set aside the Decision[3] of Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 00-787 dated 11 December 2000, as well as its Order[4] dated 5 September 2000.  The RTC’s decision affirmed the Decision[5] dated 28 December 1999 of Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City in Civil Case No. 52400 for Recovery of a Sum of Money.

 

The Facts

 

          The appellate court narrated the facts as follows:

 

            Petitioners Gerong and [Editha] Broqueza (defendants below) are employees of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). They are also members of respondent Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. Staff Retirement Plan (HSBCL-SRP, plaintiff below). The HSBCL-SRP is a  retirement plan established by HSBC through its Board of Trustees for the benefit of the employees.

 

            On October 1, 1990, petitioner [Editha] Broqueza obtained a car loan in the amount of Php175,000.00.  On December 12, 1991, she again applied and was granted an appliance loan in the amount of Php24,000.00.  On the other hand, petitioner Gerong applied and was granted an emergency loan in the amount of Php35,780.00 on June 2, 1993. These loans are paid through automatic salary deduction.

 

            Meanwhile [in 1993], a labor dispute arose between HSBC and its employees.  Majority of HSBC’s employees were terminated, among whom are petitioners Editha Broqueza and Fe Gerong.  The employees then filed an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against HSBC.  The legality or illegality of such termination is now pending before this appellate Court in CA G.R. CV No. 56797, entitled Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

 

            Because of their dismissal, petitioners were not able to pay the monthly amortizations of their respective loans.  Thus, respondent HSBCL-SRP considered the accounts of petitioners delinquent.  Demands to pay the respective obligations were made upon petitioners, but they failed to pay.[6]

 

           

          HSBCL-SRP, acting through its Board of Trustees and represented by Alejandro L. Custodio, filed Civil Case No. 52400 against the spouses Broqueza on 31 July 1996.  On 19 September 1996, HSBCL-SRP filed Civil Case No. 52911 against Gerong.  Both suits were civil actions for recovery and collection of sums of money. 

 

The Metropolitan Trial Court’s Ruling

 

          On 28 December 1999, the MeTC promulgated its Decision[7] in favor of HSBCL-SRP.  The MeTC ruled that the nature of HSBCL-SRP’s demands for payment is civil and has no connection to the ongoing labor dispute.  Gerong and Editha Broqueza’s termination from employment resulted in the loss of continued benefits under their retirement plans.  Thus, the loans secured by their future retirement benefits to which they are no longer entitled are reduced to unsecured and pure civil obligations.  As unsecured and pure obligations, the loans are immediately demandable.

 

          The dispositive portion of the MeTC’s decision reads:

 

            WHEREFORE, premises considered and in view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the plaintiff was able to prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence and immediate demandability of the defendants’ loan obligations as judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in both cases, ordering the latter:

 

            1.         In Civil Case No. 52400, to pay the amount of Php116,740.00 at six percent interest per annum from the time of demand and in Civil Case No. 52911, to pay the amount of Php25,344.12 at six percent per annum from the time of the filing of these cases, until the amount is fully paid;

 

            2.         To pay the amount of Php20,000.00 each as reasonable attorney’s fees;

 

            3.         Cost of suit.

 

            SO ORDERED.[8]

 

 

            Gerong and the spouses Broqueza filed a joint appeal of the MeTC’s decision before the RTC.  Gerong’s case was docketed Civil Case No. 00-786, while the spouses Broqueza’s case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-787. 

 

The Regional Trial Court’s Ruling

 

          The RTC initially denied the joint appeal because of the belated filing of Gerong and the spouses Broqueza’s memorandum.  The RTC later reconsidered the order of denial and resolved the issues in the interest of justice. 

 

          On 11 December 2000, the RTC affirmed the MeTC’s decision in toto.[9]  

 

          The RTC ruled that Gerong and Editha Broqueza’s termination from employment disqualified them from availing of benefits under their retirement plans.  As a consequence, there is no longer any security for the loans.  HSBCL-SRP has a legal right to demand immediate settlement of the unpaid balance because of Gerong and Editha Broqueza’s continued default in payment and their failure to provide new security for their loans.  Moreover, the absence of a period within which to pay the loan allows HSBCL-SRP to demand immediate payment.  The loan obligations are considered pure obligations, the fulfillment of which are demandable at once. 

           

Gerong and the spouses Broqueza then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 before the CA.

 

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

 

On 30 March 2006, the CA rendered its Decision[10] which reversed the 11 December 2000 Decision of the RTC.  The CA ruled that the HSBCL-SRP’s complaints for recovery of sum of money against Gerong and the spouses Broqueza are premature as the loan obligations have not yet matured.  Thus, no cause of action accrued in favor of HSBCL-SRP.  The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s Decision reads as follows:

 

            WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  A new one is hereby rendered DISMISSING the consolidated complaints for recovery of sum of money.

 

            SO ORDERED.[11]

 

 

HSBCL-SRP filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied for lack of merit in its Resolution[12] promulgated on 19 June 2007. 

 

On 6 August 2007, HSBCL-SRP filed a manifestation withdrawing the petition against Gerong because she already settled her obligations.  In a Resolution[13] of this Court dated 10 September 2007, this Court treated the manifestation as a motion to withdraw the petition against Gerong, granted the motion, and considered the case against Gerong closed and terminated. 

 

Issues

 

 

HSBCL-SRP enumerated the following grounds to support its Petition:

 

I.          The Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance in a way not in accord with law and applicable decisions of this Honorable Court; and

II.        The Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court.[14]

 

 

The Court’s Ruling

 

          The petition is meritorious.  We agree with the rulings of the MeTC and the RTC. 

         

          The Promissory Notes uniformly provide:

 

PROMISSORY NOTE

 

P_____                                                                   Makati, M.M. ____ 19__

 

            FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/WE _____ jointly and severally promise to pay to THE HSBC RETIREMENT PLAN (hereinafter called the “PLAN”) at its office in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, on or before until fully paid the sum of PESOS ___ (P___) Philippine Currency without discount, with interest from date hereof at the rate of Six per cent (6%) per annum, payable monthly.

 

            I/WE agree that the PLAN may, upon written notice, increase the interest rate stipulated in this note at any time depending on prevailing conditions.

 

            I/WE hereby expressly consent to any extensions or renewals hereof for a portion or whole of the principal without notice to the other(s), and in such a case our liability shall remain joint and several.

 

            In case collection is made by or through an attorney, I/WE jointly and severally agree to pay ten percent (10%) of the amount due on this note (but in no case less than P200.00) as and for attorney’s fees in addition to expenses and costs of suit.

 

            In case of judicial execution, I/WE hereby jointly and severally waive our rights under the provisions of Rule 39, Section 12 of the Rules of Court.[15]

 

         

          In ruling for HSBCL-SRP, we apply the first paragraph of Article 1179 of the Civil Code:

            Art. 1179.  Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once. 

 

            x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

 

 

          We affirm the findings of the MeTC and the RTC that there is no date of payment indicated in the Promissory Notes.  The RTC is correct in ruling that since the Promissory Notes do not contain a period, HSBCL-SRP has the right to demand immediate payment.  Article 1179 of the Civil Code applies.  The spouses Broqueza’s obligation to pay HSBCL-SRP is a pure obligation.  The fact that HSBCL-SRP was content with the prior monthly check-off from Editha Broqueza’s salary is of no moment.  Once Editha Broqueza defaulted in her monthly payment, HSBCL-SRP made a demand to enforce a pure obligation.

 

          In their Answer, the spouses Broqueza admitted that prior to Editha Broqueza’s dismissal from HSBC in December 1993, she “religiously paid the loan amortizations, which HSBC collected through payroll check-off.”[16]  A definite amount is paid to HSBCL-SRP on a specific date. Editha Broqueza authorized HSBCL-SRP to make deductions from her payroll until her loans are fully paid.  Editha Broqueza, however, defaulted in her monthly loan payment due to her dismissal.  Despite the spouses Broqueza’s protestations, the payroll deduction is merely a convenient mode of payment and not the sole source of payment for the loans.  HSBCL-SRP never agreed that the loans will be paid only through salary deductions.  Neither did HSBCL-SRP agree that if Editha Broqueza ceases to be an employee of HSBC, her obligation to pay the loans will be suspended.  HSBCL-SRP can immediately demand payment of the loans at anytime because the obligation to pay has no period.  Moreover, the spouses Broqueza have already incurred in default in paying the monthly installments.

          Finally, the enforcement of a loan agreement involves “debtor-creditor relations founded on contract and does not in any way concern employee relations.  As such it should be enforced  through a separate civil action in the regular courts and not before the Labor Arbiter.”[17]

 

          WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62685 promulgated on 30 March 2006 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The decision of Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 00-787, as well as the decision of Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 52400 against the spouses Bienvenido and Editha Broqueza, are AFFIRMED.  Costs against respondents.

 

          SO ORDERED.

                            

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

                                      ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                            Associate Justice

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

 

                           ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA              

          Associate Justice 

   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA                           ROBERTO A. ABAD             

         Associate Justice                                         Associate Justice            

 

 

 

 

         

                                           JOSE C. MENDOZA       

                                                Associate Justice                                                             

 

ATTESTATION

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

                                                     ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                                                    Associate Justice

                              Chairperson

 

 

CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division  Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

                                                                   RENATO C. CORONA

                                                                          Chief Justice

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

           


[1]     Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2]     Rollo, pp. 27-41.  Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, with Associate Justices Rebecca              De Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring.

[3]     Id. at 49-54.  Penned by Judge Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.

[4]     CA rollo, p. 29.

[5]     Rollo, pp. 45-48.  Penned by Judge Selma Palacio Alaras.

[6]     Id. at 28-29.

[7]     Id. at 45-48.

[8]     Id. at 48.        

[9]     Id. at 49-54.

[10]    Id. at 27-41.

[11]    Id. at 41.

[12]    Id. at 43-44.

[13]    Id. at 86.

[14]    Id. at 14.

[15]    CA rollo, p. 59.

[16]    CA rollo, p. 50.

[17]    NDC Guthrie Plantations, Inc. v. NLRC, 414 Phil. 714, 726-727 (2001).  See also Nestlé             Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 85197, 18 March 1991, 195 SCRA 340.