Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Asset Privatization Trust V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    The case involved a Mortgage Trust Agreement between MMIC, PNB, and DBP where MMIC mortgaged all its assets to secure loans from PNB and DBP. When MMIC failed to pay back huge loan amounts that were overdue, PNB and DBP foreclosed on the mortgages according to the agreement. MMIC sued, arguing the banks should have followed a debt restructuring plan. The Court ruled MMIC was not entitled to moral damages because as a corporation it cannot experience mental anguish, and its reputation was already poor due to huge unpaid government debts. Moral damages require actual injury, which corporations cannot feel.

    Copyright:

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

    Asset Privatization Trust V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    176 views1 page
    The case involved a Mortgage Trust Agreement between MMIC, PNB, and DBP where MMIC mortgaged all its assets to secure loans from PNB and DBP. When MMIC failed to pay back huge loan amounts that were overdue, PNB and DBP foreclosed on the mortgages according to the agreement. MMIC sued, arguing the banks should have followed a debt restructuring plan. The Court ruled MMIC was not entitled to moral damages because as a corporation it cannot experience mental anguish, and its reputation was already poor due to huge unpaid government debts. Moral damages require actual injury, which corporations cannot feel.

    Original Description:

    sad

    Original Title

    Asset Privatization Trust v Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a Mortgage Trust Agreement between MMIC, PNB, and DBP where MMIC mortgaged all its assets to secure loans from PNB and DBP. When MMIC failed to pay back huge loan amounts that were overdue, PNB and DBP foreclosed on the mortgages according to the agreement. MMIC sued, arguing the banks should have followed a debt restructuring plan. The Court ruled MMIC was not entitled to moral damages because as a corporation it cannot experience mental anguish, and its reputation was already poor due to huge unpaid government debts. Moral damages require actual injury, which corporations cannot feel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views1 page

    Asset Privatization Trust V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    King Badong
    The case involved a Mortgage Trust Agreement between MMIC, PNB, and DBP where MMIC mortgaged all its assets to secure loans from PNB and DBP. When MMIC failed to pay back huge loan amounts that were overdue, PNB and DBP foreclosed on the mortgages according to the agreement. MMIC sued, arguing the banks should have followed a debt restructuring plan. The Court ruled MMIC was not entitled to moral damages because as a corporation it cannot experience mental anguish, and its reputation was already poor due to huge unpaid government debts. Moral damages require actual injury, which corporations cannot feel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Asset Privatization Trust v Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 (1998)

    Facts:

    MMIC, PNB and DBP executed a Mortgage Trust Agreementwhereby MMIC, as mortgagor, agreed to constitute a
    mortgage in favor or PNB and DBP as mortgagees, over all MMIC's assets. Article IV of the Mortgage Trust Agreement
    provides for Events of Default, which expressly includes the event that the MORTGAGOR shall fail to pay any amount
    secured by this Mortgage Trust Agreement when due. In various requests for advances/remittances of loans if huge
    amounts, Deeds of Undertaking, Promissory Notes, Loan Documents, Deeds of Real Estate Mortgages, MMIC invariably
    committed to pay either on demand or under certain terms the loans and accommodations secured from or guaranteed
    by both DBP and PNB. Because of the tremendous loans obtained, a financial restructuring plan (FRP) designed to
    reduce MMIC's interest expense through debt conversion to equity was drafted SGV, however, it was never adopted.
    The various loans and advances made by DBP and PNB to MMIC had become overdue and since any restructuring
    program relative to the loans was no longer feasible, and in compliance with the directive of Presidential Decree No.
    385, DBP and PNB as mortgagees of MMIC assets, decided to exercise their right to extrajudicially foreclose the
    mortgages in accordance with the Mortgage Trust Agreement. The assets were eventually transferred to APT. SHs of
    MMIC thereafter filed a derivative suit against DBP and PNB praying that the foreclosure be annulled, that the FRP be
    followed and damages. In arbitration proceedings, MMIC obtained a favorable decision. Court of Appeals denied due
    course and dismissed the petition for certiorari.

    Issue: Whether or not theMMIC is entitled to moral damages.

    Ruling: NO.
    As a rule, a corporation exercises its powers, including the power to enter into contracts, through its board of
    directors. While a corporation may appoint agents to enter into a contract in its behalf, the agent should not exceed
    his authority. In the case at bar, there was no showing that the representatives of PNB and DBP in MMIC even had the
    requisite authority to enter into a debt-for-equity swap. And if they had such authority, there was no showing that the
    banks, through their board of directors, had ratified the FRP.

    Further, how the MMIC could be entitled to a big amount of moral damages when its credit reputation was not exactly
    something to be considered sound and wholesome. Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages include
    besmirched reputation which a corporation may possibly suffer. A corporation whose overdue and unpaid debts to the
    Government alone reached a tremendous amount of P22 Billion Pesos cannot certainly have a solid business reputation
    to brag about.

    Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not
    to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the
    defendant, but to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the
    moral suffering he has undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status
    quo ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. . . The award of moral damages cannot be granted in
    favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no
    feelings, no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be
    experienced only by one having a nervous system. The statement in People v. Manero [218 SCRA 85 (1993)] and
    Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB [130 Phil. 366 (1968)], that a corporation may recover moral damages if it “has a good
    reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation” is an obiter dictum. . . The possible basis of recover of a
    corporation would be under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, but which requires a clear proof of malice or bad
    faith.

    You might also like