2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

*
No. L74834. November 17, 1988.

INSULAR BANK OF ASIA & AMERICA (NOW

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK),
petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO., SPS. BEN MENDOZA & JUANITA M.
MENDOZA, respondents.

Commercial Law Negotiable Instruments Letters of Credit

Credit Transactions The subject standby letters of credit are in
effect an absolute undertaking to pay the money advanced or the
amount for which credit is given on the faith of the instrument.
Unequivocally, the subject standby Letters of Credit secure the
payment of any obligation of the Mendozas to Philam Life
including all interests, surcharges and expenses thereon but not
to exceed P600,000.00. But while they are a security
arrangement, they are not converted thereby into contracts of
guaranty. That would make them ultra vires rather than a letter
of credit, which is within the powers of a bank (Section 74[e], e],
RA 337, General Banking Act). The standby L/Cs are, "in effect an
absolute undertaking to pay the money advanced or the amount
for which credit is given on the faith of the instrument." (Scribner
v. Rutherford, 22 N.W. 670, 65 lowa 551 Duval v. Trask, 12 Mass.
154, cited in 38 CJS, Sec. 7, p. 1142). They are primary
obligations and not accessory contracts. Being separate and
independent agreements, the payments made by the Mendozas
cannot be added in computing

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

451

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 451 1/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 451

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

IBBA's liability under its own standby letters of credit. Payments

made by the Mendozas directly to Philam Life are in compliance
with their own prestation under the loan agreements. And
although these payments could result in the reduction of the
actual amount which could ultimately be collected from IBAA, the
latter's separate undertaking under its L/Cs remains.
Same Same Same Construction Letters of credit are strictly
construed most strongly against the writer, and so as to be
reasonable and consistent with honest intention.The amount of
P222,000.000, therefore, considered as "any obligation of the
accountee" under the L/Cs will still have to be paid by IBAA
under the explicit terms thereof, which IBAA had itself supplied.
Letters of credit are strictly construed to the end that the rights of
those directly parties to them may be preserved and their interest
safeguarded (Moss vs. Old Colony Trust Co., 140 N.E 803, 246
Mass. 138,152). Like any other writing, it will be construed most
strongly against the writer and so as to be reasonable and
consistent with honest intentions. On the whole, the construction
will be generally a strict one (Lamborn vs. National Park Bank of
New York, 208 N.Y.S. 428, 212 App. Div. 25, affirming Id., 204
N.Y.S. 557, 123 Misc. 211, affirmed Id., 148 N.E. 664, 240 N.Y.
520). As found by the Appellate Court, however, the amount
payable should not exceed P296,294.05 (P600,000.00 less
P303,705.95, the total amount found by the Appellate Court to
have been paid by IBAA to Philam Life).
Same Same Same Credit Transactions Nominal interest is
different from the effective rate of interest the discounting interest
scheme and the principal amortization scheme are practices
commonly resorted to by lending institutions.It is a matter of
common knowledge in lending procedures that the nominal
interest is different from the effective rate of interest and that the
discounting interest scheme as well as the principal amortization
scheme are practices commonly resorted to by lending
institutions. If IBAA disagreed with the computation scheme
adopted by Philam Life, which could have been detected in the
early stages of the controversy, IBAA could have interposed its
objections.
Evidence Findings of fact of the trial court should be accorded
not only respect but also finality.The second issue as to whether
or not documentary evidence was disregarded by the Appellate
Court regarding the amount actually paid by IBAA to Philam
Life, or P303,705.95 (not P342,127.05 as found by the Trial

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

Court), questions a finding of fact, which should be accorded not

only respect but even

452

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

finality. It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh

such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to
reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by lower
Courts.
Civil Procedure Pleadings Issues Raised in Pleadings It is
an accepted judicial practice that courts are not required to resolve
all issues raised in pleadings unless necessary for the resolution of
the case.The third issue faults respondent Appellate Court with
having passed subsilencio over certain points raised by petitioner
IBAA in his Brief sustaining the Decision of the Trial Court. It is
accepted judicial practice, however, that Courts are not required
to resolve all issues raised in pleadings unless necessary for the
resolution of the case. Apparently, respondent Appellate Court
deemed it unnecessary to pass upon those points.
Commercial Law Letters of Credit Securities Since there has
been full liquidation between IBAA and the Mendozas, the
remaining obligation of P222,000 on the loan of the Mendozas in
now IBAA's sole responsibility, by virtue of the latter's absolute
and irrevocable undertaking under the standby letter of credit.
As to the liability of the Mendozas to IBAA, it bears recalling
that the Mendozas, upon their application for the opening and
issuance of the Irrevocable Standby Letters of Credit in favor of
Philam Life, had executed a Real Estate Mortgage as security to
IBAA for any payment that the latter may remit to Philam Life on
the strength of said Letters of Credit and that IBAA had
recovered from the Mendozas the amount of P432,386.07 when it
foreclosed on the mortgaged property of said spouses in the
concept of "principal (unpaid advances under the 2 standby LCs
plus interest and charges)." In addition, IBAA had recovered
P255,364.95 representing its clean loans to the Mendozas plus
accrued interest besides the fact that it now has the foreclosed
property. As between IBAA and the Mendozas, therefore, there
has been full liquidation. The remaining obligation of P222,000.00
on the loan of the Mendozas, therefore, is now IBAAs sole
responsibility to pay to Philam Life by virtue of its absolute and
irrevocable undertaking under the standby L/Cs. Specially so,
since the Promissory Notes executed by the Mendozas in favor of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

IBAA authorized the sale of the mortgaged security "for the

purpose of applying their proceeds to xxx payments" of their
obligations to IBAA.

PETITION for certiorari to review the judgment of the then

Intermediate Appellate Court. Britanico, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
453

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 453

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

Balili, Parado, Cavada & Maamo for petitioner.

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & Delos
Angeles for respondent Spouses Mendozas.
Francisco, Zulueta & Associates for respondent
Philam Life.

MELENCIOHERRERA, J.:

An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

by petitioner, the Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA)
[now the Philippine Commercial International Bank], from
the judgment of the public **
respondent, then the
Intermediate Appellate Court, in CAG.R. CV No. 03224.
Briefly, the antecedent facts disclose that sometime in
1976 and 1977 respondent spouses Ben S. Mendoza and
Juanita M. Mendoza (the Mendozas, for brevity), obtained
two (2) loans from respondent Philippine American Life
Insurance Co. (Philam Life) in the total amount of
P600,000.00 to finance the construction of their residential
house at Mandaue City. The said loans, with a 14%
nominal interest rate, were to be liquidated in equal
amortizations over a period of five (5) years from March
1977 to March 1982.
To secure payment, Philam Life required that
amortizations be guaranteed by an irrevocable standby
letter of credit of a commercial bank. Thus, the Mendozas
contracted with petitioner Insular Bank of Asia and
America (IBAA) for the issuance of two (2) irrevocable
standby Letters of Credit in favor of Philam Life for the
total amount of P600,000.00. The first L/C for P500,000.00
was to expire on 1 October 1981 (Exhibit "7", IBAA), and
the second for P100,000.00 on 1 January 1982 (Exhibit "8",
IBAA). These two (2) irrevocable standby L/Cs were, in
turn, secured by a real estate mortgage for the same

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

amount on the property of Respondent Spouses in favor of

IBAA.
On 11 May 1977, the Mendozas executed a promissory
note (No. L562/77) in favor of IBAA promising to pay the
sum of

_______________

** Penned by Justice Ramon B. Britanico and concurred in by Justices

Porfirio V. Sison, Abdulwahid A. Bidin and Marcelino R. Veloso.

454

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America us. IAC

P1 00,000.00 plus 19% p.a. interest on 31 May 1979. Again,

on 3 June 1977, Respondent Spouses executed another
Promissory Note (No. 564/77) binding themselves to pay
IBAA P100,000.00 plus 19% p.a. interest on 23 June 1979.
Both Notes authorized IBAA "to sell at public or private
sale such securities or things for the purpose of applying
their proceeds to such payments" of "any particular
obligation or obligations" the Mendozas may have to IBAA.
(Exhibits "34" and "35"IBAA, Annex "D" p. 131, Rollo)
The Mendozas failed to pay Philam Life the
amortization that fell due 0111 June 1978 so that Philam
Life informed IBAA that it was declaring both loans as
"entirely due and demandable" and demanded payment of
P492,996.30 (Exhibit "H"). However, because IBAA
contested the propriety of calling in the entire loan, Philam
Life desisted and resumed availing of the L/Cs by drawing
on them for five (5) more amortizations.
On 7 September 1979, because the Mendozas defaulted
on their amortization due 011 1 September 1979, Philam
Life again informed IBAA that it was declaring the entire
balance outstanding on both loans, including liquidated
damages, "immediately due and payable." Philam Life then
demanded the payment of P274,779.56 from IBAA but the
latter took the position that, as a mere guarantor of the
Mendozas who are the principal debtors, its remaining
outstanding obligation under the two (2) standby L/Cs was
only P30,1 00.60. Later, IBAA corrected the latter amount
and showed instead an overpayment arrived at as follows:

Limit of Liability P600,000.00

Less:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

a) Payment of P280,293.11
Mendozas
b) Payment of lBAA __372,227.65__ __652,520.76__
Overpayment by IBAA (P 52,520.76)

On 21 April 1980 the Real Estate Mortgage, which secured

the two (2) standby L/Cs, was extrajudicially foreclosed by,
and sold at public auction for P775,000.00, to petitioner
IBAA as the lone and highest bidder (Exhibit "17
Mendoza"). The bid price of P775,000.00 by petitioner IBAA
was arrived at as follows:
455

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 455

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

Principal (unpaid advances under the 2

standby LCs) plus interest & charges P432,386.07
Add:
a) Stipulated Attorney's fees (20%) P 86,477.20
b) Principals (clean loans) plus accrued
interest under P/Ns Nos. 562/77 and
564/77 P255,346.95
c) Expenses of foreclosure P 772.20
TOTAL P775,000.42

On a date that does not appear of record, Philam Life filed

suit against Respondent Spouses and IBAA before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXXI, for the
recovery of the sum of P274,779.56, the amount allegedly
still owing under the loan. After trial, said Court rendered
a Decision finding that IBAA had paid Philam Life only
P342,127.05 and not P372,227.65, as claimed by IBAA,
because of a stale IBAA Manager's check in the amount of
P30,100.60, which had to be deducted. With this deduction,
the Trial Court arrived at the following computation:

Limit of Liability of IBAA Less: P600,000.00

a) Payment by Mendozas P280,293.11
b) Payment by IBAA P342,127.05 P622,420.16
Overpayment by IBAA P 22,420.16

Thus, the Trial Court ruled:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

"ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:

"(1) Defendantsspouses Ben S. Mendoza and Juanita M.

Mendoza to pay plaintiff Philippine American Life
Insurance Company the sum of P322,000.00 plus 2% per
month as penalty interest from September 12, 1979 until
the whole amount is fully paid, P10,000 as attorney's fees,
and costs.
"(2) Plaintiff Philippine American Life Insurance Company to
refund the sum of P22,420.16 to the defendant Insular
Bank of Asia and America plus legal interest from March
31, 1980 until the whole amount is fully paid and
"(3) Dismissal of the counterclaim and crossclaim filed by the
defendantsspouses against the plaintiff and the
defendant IBAA, as well as the counterclaim filed by
defendant IBAA against the plaintiff." (pp. 2829, Rollo)

456

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

In so deciding, the Trial Court took the position that IBAA,

"as surety," was discharged of its liability to the extent of
the payment made by the Mendozas, as the principal
debtors, to the creditor, Philam Life.
Both Philam Life and Respondent Spouses appealed to
respondent Appellate Court, which reversed the Trial
Court and ruled instead that IBAA's liability was not
reduced by virtue of the payments made by the Mendozas.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court decreed:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering:

1. Defendantsappellant spouses Ben S. Mendoza and

Juanita M. Mendoza and defendantappellee IBAA to pay
jointly and severally plaintiffappellant Philamlife, the
sum of P222,000.00 plus 2% per month as penalty interest
from September 12, 1979 until the whole amount is fully
paid plus P25,000.00, as attorney's fees, and costs
however, defendantappellee IBAA shall only be liable up
to the amount of P296,294.05
2. Dismissal of the claim by the IBAA for a refund of
P22,420.16 from the PhilAmerican Life Insurance Co.
and
3. Dismissal of the counterclaim and crossclaim filed by the
defendantspouses against the plaintiff and the defendant
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

IBAA, as well as the counterclaim filed by defendant IBAA

against the plaintiff.

"No special pronouncement as to costs in this instance." (p. 51,

Rollo).

Availing of the instant Petition, IBAA seeks a reversal of

the aforesaid judgment and the affirmance instead of that
of the Trial Court. We resolved to give due course.
The issues addressed, as posited by IBAA, are:

"1. Whether or not the partial payments made by the

principal obligors (respondent MENDOZAS) would
have the corresponding effect of reducing the
liability of the petitioner as guarantor or surety
under the terms of the standby LCs in question.
"2. Whether or not respondent Intermediate Appellate
Court is correct in disregarding a documentary
evidence (O.R. No. 74323, Exhibit 28IBAA)
showing the amount paid by petitioner and which
was admitted as evidence without objection on the
part of the counsel for the respondent Philam.

457

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 457

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

"3. Whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court is

correct in passing subsilencio the following points
raised by the petitioner in its Brief to sustain the
decision of the Trial Court 011 some other grounds.

a. Effective rate of interest imposed by respondent

Philam exceeded the allowable ceiling
b. Respondent Philam has no right to call in at one
time the two standby letters of credit
c. Respondent Philam failed to follow the condition in
the two (2) standby letters of credit:

which could have otherwise altered the result of the

decision.

"4. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees to

respondent Philam is proper in so far as petitioner
is affected." (p. 15, Rollo)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

The pivotal issue is the first one. IBAA stresses that it has
no more liability to Philam Life under the two (2) standby
Letters of Credit and, instead, is entitled to a refund.
Whereas Philam Life and the Mendoza spouses separately
maintain that IBAA's obligation under said two (2) L/Cs is
original and primary and is not reduced by the direct
payments made by the Mendozas to Philam Life.
1. In construing the terms of a Letter of Credit, as in
other contracts, it is the intention of the parties that must
govern.

"Letters of credit and contracts for the issuance of such letters are
subject to the same rules of construction as are ordinary
commercial contracts. They are to receive a reasonable and not a
technical construction and although usage and custom cannot
control express terms in letters of credit, they are to be construed
with reference to all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to
the particular and often varying terms in which they may be
expressed, the circumstances and intention of the parties to them,
and the usages of the particular trade of business contemplated."
(International Banking Corp. vs. Irving National Bank, CCA N.Y.
283 F. 103, affirming DC 274 F. 122 Old Colony Trust Co. vs.
Lawyers' Title and Trust Co., CAA NY, 297 F. 152, cited in Vol.
72, CJS sec. 178, pp. 387388).

The terms of the subject Irrevocable Standby Letters of

Credit read, in part, as follows:

"This credit secures the payment of any obligation of the accountee

to you under that Loan Agreement hereto attached as Annex 'A'

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America us. IAC

and made a part hereof, including those pertaining to (a)

surcharges on defaulted installments, (b) increased interest
charges (in the event the law should authorize this increase), and
(c) liabilities connected with taxes stipulated to be for Accountee's
account provided, however, that our maximum liabilities
hereunder shall not exceed the amount of P500,000.00
(P100.000.00 for the other LC). "Each drawing under this credit
shall be available at any time after one (1) day from due date of
the obligations therein secured. Each drawing under this credit
shall be accomplished by your signed statement in duplicate that
the amount drawn represents payment due and unpaid by the
accountee." (pp. 1112, Decision, pp. 3839, Rollo). [ltalics ours].

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

Unequivocally, the subject standby Letters of Credit secure

the payment of any obligation of the Mendozas to Philam
Life including all interests, surcharges and expenses
thereon but not to exceed P600,000.00. But while they are a
security arrangement, they are not converted thereby into
contracts of guaranty. That would make them ultra vires
rather than a letter of credit, which is within the powers
1
of
a bank (Section 74[e], RA 337, General Banking Act). The
standby L/Cs are, "in effect an absolute undertaking to pay
the money advanced or the amount for which credit is
given on the faith of the instrument." (Scribner v.
Rutherford, 22 N.W. 670, 65 lowa 551 Duval v. Trask, 12
Mass. 154, cited in 38 CJS, Sec. 7, p. 1142). They are
primary obligations and not accessory contracts. Being
separate and independent agreements, the payments made
by the Mendozas cannot be added in computing IBAA's
liability under its own standby letters of credit. Payments
made by the Mendozas directly to Philam Life are in
compliance with their own prestation under the loan agree

_______________

1 "Section 74. No bank or banking institution shall enter directly or

indirectly, into any contract of guaranty or surety, or shall guarantee the
interest or principal of any obligation of any person, copartnership,
association, corporation or other entity. The provisions of this section
shall, however, not apply to the following:

(a) x x x
(e) letters of credit transaction, including standby arrangements:
x x x"

459

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 459

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

ments. And although these payments could result in the

reduction of the actual amount which could ultimately be
collected from IBAA, the latter's separate undertaking
under its L/Cs remains.
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found, as a
fact, that there still remains a balance on the loan.
Pursuant to its absolute undertaking under the L/Cs,
therefore, IBAA cannot escape the obligation to pay Philam
Life for this unexpended balance. The Appellate Court
found it to be P222,000.00, arrived at by the Trial Court
and adopted by the Appellate Court, as follows:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

"x x x In the summary of application of payments (Exhibit 'KK')

the plaintiff applied P1,918.00 as commitment fee, P4,397.66 as
surcharges, P199,683.40 as interests, and P320,000.00 on the
principal. The P58,000.00 which is covered by OR No. 74396 was
also applied 'against the total loan.' Since plaintiff applied
P378,000.00 against the total indebtedness of P600,000.00 there
still remains an outstanding balance on the principal P322,000.00
(should be P222,000.00) aside from the agreed penalty interest
until the whole amount is fully paid. x x x" (Decision, Trial Court,
p. 50, Rollo)

The amount of P222,000.00, therefore, considered as "any

obligation of the accountee" under the L/Cs will still have
to be paid by IBAA under the explicit terms thereof, which
IBAA had itself supplied. Letters of credit are strictly
construed to the end that the rights of those directly
parties to them may be preserved and their interest
safeguarded (Moss vs. Old Colony Trust Co., 140 N.E. 803,
246 Mass. 138, 152). Like any other writing, it will be
construed most strongly against the writer and so as to be
reasonable and consistent with honest intentions. On the
whole, the construction will be generally a strict one
(Lamborn vs. National Park Bank of New York, 208 N.Y.S.
428, 212 App. Div. 25, affirming Id., 204 N.Y.S. 557, 123
Misc. 211, affirmed Id., 148 N.E. 664, 240 N.Y. 520). As
found by the Appellate Court, however, the amount
payable should not exceed P296,294.05 (P600,000.00 less
P303,705.95, the total amount found by the Appellate
Court to have been paid by IBAA to Philam Life).
2. The second issue as to whether or not documentary
evidence was disregarded by the Appellate Court regarding
the
460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

amount actually paid by IBAA to Philam Life, or

P303,705.95 (not P342,127.05 as found by the Trial Court),
questions a finding of fact, which should be accorded not
only respect but even finality. It is not the function of this
Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its
jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that
might have been committed by lower Courts.
3. The third issue faults respondent Appellate Court
with having passed subsilencio over certain points raised
by petitioner IBAA in his Brief sustaining the Decision of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

the Trial Court. It is accepted judicial practice, however,

that Courts are not required to resolve all issues raised in
pleadings unless necessary for the resolution of the case.
Apparently, respondent Appellate Court deemed it
unnecessary to pass upon those points. Be that as it may,
suffice it to state:
a) It is a matter of common knowledge in lending
procedures that the nominal interest is different from the
effective rate of interest and that the discounting interest
scheme as well as the principal amortization scheme are
practices commonly resorted to by lending institutions. If
IBAA disagreed with the computation scheme adopted by
Philam Life, which could have been detected in the early
stages of the controversy, IBAA could have interposed its
objections.
b) The right to call in at one time the two standby L/Cs
was specifically provided for in the Loan Agreement, which
was specifically made an integral part of the L/Cs. Section
8 thereof read:

"x x x 8. The Lender shall have the right to declare the entire
balance of the loans and all obligations of the borrower to the
lender as immediately due and payable in case the borrower fails
for any reason to comply with any payment or other obligations of
the Lender." (p. 248, Rollo)

c) The omission by Philam Life to draw the required drafts

on the standby L/Cs can be explained by the fact that all
the drafts were preprepared, predated and preaccepted
by the Mendozas. Philam Life, therefore, could not have
complied to the letter with the provision in the L/Cs that
drawings therefrom were to be made by drafts for each due
and unpaid

461

VOL. 167, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 461

Insular Bank of Asia & America vs. IAC

amortization. Besides, the accelaration of the entire

balance of the loan was sufficient notice of dishonor of the
predrawn and preaccepted drafts.
4. Coming now to the award of attorney's fees of
P25,000.00, the same appears reasonable under the
circumstances of the case specially considering that in the
foreclosure of the mortgage in its favor IBAA charged the
Mendozas attorney's fees in the amount of P86,477.20,
supra.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

As to the liability of the Mendozas to IBAA, it bears

recalling that the Mendozas, upon their application for the
opening and issuance of the Irrevocable Standby Letters of
Credit in favor of Philam Life, had executed a Real Estate
Mortgage as security to IBAA for any payment that the
latter may remit to Philam Life on the strength of said
Letters of Credit and that IBAA had recovered from the
Mendozas the amount of P432,386.07 when it foreclosed on
the mortgaged property of said spouses in the concept of
"principal (unpaid advances under the 2 standby LCs plus
interest and charges)." In addition, IBAA had recovered
P255,364.95 representing its clean loans to the Mendozas
plus accrued interest besides the fact that it now has the
foreclosed property. As between IBAA and the Mendozas,
therefore, there has been full liquidation. The remaining
obligation of P222,000.00 on the loan of the Mendozas,
therefore, is now IBAA's sole responsibility to pay to
Philam Life by virtue of its absolute and irrevocable
undertaking under the standby L/Cs. Specially so, since the
promissory notes executed by the Mendozas in favor of
IBAA authorized the sale of the mortgaged security "for the
purpose of applying their proceeds to x x x payments" of
their obligations to IBAA.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court, dated 20 December 1985, is hereby
MODIFIED. Petitioner IBAA (now the Philippine
Commercial International Bank) shall pay Philippine
American Life Insurance Company the sum of P222,000.00
plus 2% per month as penalty interest from 12 September
1979 until the whole amount is fully paid, but in no case to
exceed P296,294.05, plus P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.

Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Carido

Padilla, J., no part in the deliberations.

Decision modified.

Note.Findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to

great weight on Appeal. (Municipality of Victorias us. Court
of Appeals, 149 SCRA 32.)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
2/14/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME167

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a3c59a259cfe8697a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14