Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 745 views

    PNB v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    1. Philippine National Bank (PNB) extended a credit facility to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LISAM) in the form of a Floor Stock Line. LISAM made availments totaling PHP 29.6 million, executing trust receipts for each transaction. 2. An inventory found that LISAM had sold all but PHP 158,100 worth of items. Despite demands, respondent Soriano, as signatory for LISAM, failed to remit the outstanding PHP 29.4 million to PNB. 3. Soriano claimed the loan restructuring novated the original agreement. However, the Court found novation did not occur as the requisites were not met -

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNB v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    745 views2 pages
    1. Philippine National Bank (PNB) extended a credit facility to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LISAM) in the form of a Floor Stock Line. LISAM made availments totaling PHP 29.6 million, executing trust receipts for each transaction. 2. An inventory found that LISAM had sold all but PHP 158,100 worth of items. Despite demands, respondent Soriano, as signatory for LISAM, failed to remit the outstanding PHP 29.4 million to PNB. 3. Soriano claimed the loan restructuring novated the original agreement. However, the Court found novation did not occur as the requisites were not met -

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    73. PNB v. Soriano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Philippine National Bank (PNB) extended a credit facility to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LISAM) in the form of a Floor Stock Line. LISAM made availments totaling PHP 29.6 million, executing trust receipts for each transaction. 2. An inventory found that LISAM had sold all but PHP 158,100 worth of items. Despite demands, respondent Soriano, as signatory for LISAM, failed to remit the outstanding PHP 29.4 million to PNB. 3. Soriano claimed the loan restructuring novated the original agreement. However, the Court found novation did not occur as the requisites were not met -

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    745 views2 pages

    PNB v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    1. Philippine National Bank (PNB) extended a credit facility to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LISAM) in the form of a Floor Stock Line. LISAM made availments totaling PHP 29.6 million, executing trust receipts for each transaction. 2. An inventory found that LISAM had sold all but PHP 158,100 worth of items. Despite demands, respondent Soriano, as signatory for LISAM, failed to remit the outstanding PHP 29.4 million to PNB. 3. Soriano claimed the loan restructuring novated the original agreement. However, the Court found novation did not occur as the requisites were not met -

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Philippine National Bank v.

    Soriano
    GR No. 164051, 3 October 2012
    Nature:
    Ponente:

    Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals


    PEREZ

    FACTS:
    On March 20, 1997, [PNB] extended a credit facility in the form of [a] Floor Stock Line (FSL) in
    the increased amount of Thirty Million Pesos to Lisam Enterprises, Inc. [LISAM], a family-owned
    and controlled corporation that maintains an account with petitioner PNB.
    On various dates, LISAM made several availments of the FSL in the total amount of P29,
    645,944.55, the proceeds of which were credited to its current account with [PNB]. For each
    availment, LISAM through [Soriano] executed 52 Trust Receipts (TRs). In addition to the
    promissory notes, showing its receipt of the items in trust with the duty to turnover the proceeds
    of the sale thereof to [PNB].
    Sometime on January 21-22, 1998, [PNBs] authorized personnel conducted an actual physical
    inventory of LISAMs motor vehicles and motorcycles and found that only four (4) units covered
    by the TRs amounting to P158, 100.00 remained unsold.
    Out of the P29, 644,944.55, as the outstanding principal balance [of] the total availments on the
    line covered by TRs, [LISAM] should have remitted to [PNB], P29, 487,844.55. Despite several
    formal demands, respondent Soriano failed and refused to turn over the said [amount to] the
    prejudice of [PNB].
    In refutation, Soriano filed a counter-affidavit asserting that her existing credit facilities with PNB
    have been restructured, therefore extinguishing her criminal liability and novating the original loan
    agreement.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the restructuring of LISAMs loan account novated the original loan agreement
    HELD:
    NO. Petition Granted
    RATIO:
    Novation is one of the modes of extinguishment of obligations; it is a single juridical act with a
    diptych function. The substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one extinguishes
    the first, resulting in the creation of a new obligation in lieu of the old. It is not a complete
    obliteration of the obligor-obligee relationship, but operates as a relative extinction of the original
    obligation.
    In order for novation to take place, the concurrence of the following requisites is indispensable:
    (1) There must be a previous valid obligation; (2) There must be an agreement of the parties
    concerned to a new contract; (3) There must be the extinguishment of the old contract; and (4)
    There must be the validity of the new contract.
    Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether totally or partially, must

    appear by express agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and unmistakable.
    The contracting parties must incontrovertibly disclose that their object in executing the new
    contract is to extinguish the old one. Upon the other hand, no specific form is required for an
    implied novation, and all that is prescribed by law would be an incompatibility between the two
    contracts. Nonetheless, both kinds of novation must still be clearly proven.
    Well-settled is the rule that, with respect to obligations to pay a sum of money, the obligation is
    not novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes the old, changes only the terms of
    payment, adds other obligations not incompatible with the old ones, or the new contract merely
    supplements the old one. Besides, novation does not extinguish criminal liability. It stands to
    reason therefore, that Sorianos criminal liability under the TRs subsists considering that the
    purported restructured Omnibus Line did not extinguish the civil obligations under the Floor Stock
    Line secured by TRs.

    You might also like