LEE vs. CA (Commercial Law Review)

G.R. No. 117913               February 1, 2002

CHARLES LEE, CHUA SIOK SUY, MARIANO SIO, ALFONSO YAP, RICHARD VELASCO and ALFONSO CO, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

FACTS:

President, Mr. Charles Lee, and the Vice-President and General Manager, Mr. Mariano A. Sio, singly or jointly, be and they are duly authorized and empowered for and in behalf of this Corporation to apply for, negotiate and secure the approval of commercial loans and other banking facilities and accommodations, such as, but not limited to discount loans, letters of credit, trust receipts, lines for marginal deposits on foreign and domestic letters of credit, negotiate out-of-town checks, etc. from the Philippine Bank of Communications.

MICO availed of the some loans and as security for the loans, MICO through its Vice-President and General Manager, Mariano Sio, executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over its properties.

Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap and Richard Velasco, in their personal capacities executed a Surety Agreement in favor of PBCom whereby the petitioners jointly and severally, guaranteed the prompt payment on due dates or at maturity of overdrafts, promissory notes, discounts, drafts, letters of credit, bills of exchange, trust receipts, and other obligations of every kind and nature, for which MICO may be held accountable by PBCom.

Upon maturity of all credit availments obtained by MICO from PBCom, the latter made a demand for payment. For failure of petitioner MICO to pay the obligations incurred despite repeated demands, private respondent PBCom extrajudicially foreclosed MICO’s real estate mortgage and sold the said mortgaged properties in a public auction.

PBCom filed a complaint with prayer for writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was raffled to Branch 55, alleging that MICO was no longer in operation and had no properties to answer for its obligations. PBCom further alleged that petitioner Charles Lee has disposed or concealed his properties with intent to defraud his creditors.

Petitioners (MICO and herein petitioners-sureties) denied all the allegations of the complaint filed by respondent PBCom, and alleged that: a) MICO was not granted the alleged loans and neither did it receive the proceeds of the aforesaid loans; b) Chua Siok Suy was never granted any valid Board Resolution to sign for and in behalf of MICO; c) PBCom acted in bad faith in granting the alleged loans and in releasing the proceeds thereof; d) petitioners were never advised of the alleged grant of loans and the subsequent releases therefor, if any; e) since no loan was ever released to or received by MICO, the corresponding real estate mortgage and the surety agreements signed concededly by the petitioners-sureties are null and void.

The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of herein petitioners and dismissed the complaint filed by PBCom. The trial court likewise declared the real estate mortgage and its foreclosure null and void. In ruling for herein petitioners, the trial court said that PBCom failed to adequately prove that the proceeds of the loans were ever delivered to MICO. 

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals but this was denied. 

Hence instant petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the proceeds of the loans and letters of credit transactions were ever delivered to MICO,

RULING:

Yes. Citing Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that "Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value", the Court of Appeals said that while the subject promissory notes and letters of credit issued by the PBCom made no mention of delivery of cash, it is presumed that said negotiable instruments were issued for valuable consideration. 

Documents presented have not merely created a prima facie case but have actually proved the solidary obligation of MICO and the petitioners, as sureties of MICO, in favor of respondent PBCom. While the presumption found under the Negotiable Instruments Law may not necessarily be applicable to trust receipts and letters of credit, the presumption that the drafts drawn in connection with the letters of credit have sufficient consideration. Under Section 3(r), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court there is also a presumption that sufficient consideration was given in a contract. Hence, petitioners should have presented credible evidence to rebut that presumption as well as the evidence presented by private respondent PBCom. The letters of credit show that the pertinent materials/merchandise have been received by MICO. The drafts signed by the beneficiary/suppliers in connection with the corresponding letters of credit proved that said suppliers were paid by PBCom for the account of MICO. On the other hand, aside from their bare denials petitioners did not present sufficient and competent evidence to rebut the evidence of private respondent PBCom. Petitioner MICO did not proffer a single piece of evidence, apart from its bare denials, to support its allegation that the loan transactions, real estate mortgage, letters of credit and trust receipts were issued allegedly without any consideration.

Expansion in the use of letters of credit was a natural development in commercial banking. Parties to a commercial letter of credit include (a) the buyer or the importer, (b) the seller, also referred to as beneficiary, (c) the opening bank which is usually the buyer’s bank which actually issues the letter of credit, (d) the notifying bank which is the correspondent bank of the opening bank through which it advises the beneficiary of the letter of credit, (e) negotiating bank which is usually any bank in the city of the beneficiary. The services of the notifying bank must always be utilized if the letter of credit is to be advised to the beneficiary through cable, (f) the paying bank which buys or discounts the drafts contemplated by the letter of credit, if such draft is to be drawn on the opening bank or on another designated bank not in the city of the beneficiary. As a rule, whenever the facilities of the opening bank are used, the beneficiary is supposed to present his drafts to the notifying bank for negotiation and (g) the confirming bank which, upon the request of the beneficiary, confirms the letter of credit issued by the opening bank.

In the case at bar, respondent PBCom, as plaintiff in the trial court, has in fact presented sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence that proved by preponderance of evidence its subject collection case against the defendants who are the petitioners herein. In view of all the foregoing, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in its appealed Decision.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 27480 entitled, "Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Mico Metals Corporation, Charles Lee, Chua Siok Suy, Mariano Sio, Alfonso Yap, Richard Velasco and Alfonso Co," is AFFIRMED in toto.