Credit Transaction Cases

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs.
DEL ROSARIO
335 SCRA 288
FACTS:
Spouses Vicente & Maria Del Rosario jointly & severally executed, signed and delivered in favor of Radiowealth Finance
Company a promissory note for P138,948.
Thereafter, respondents defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they failed to pay their obligation.
Petitioner claims that respondents are liable for the whole amount of their debt and the interest thereon, after they defaulted
on the monthly installments. Respondents counter that the installments were not yet due and demandable. They theorize that
the action for immediate enforcement of their obligation is premature because its fulfillment is dependent on the sole will of
the debtor. Hence, they consider that the proper court should first fix a period for payment, pursuant to Articles 1180 and 1197
of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
Wether the installments had already became due and demandable?
HELD:
YES. The installments had already became due & demandable is bolstered by the fact that respondents started paying
installments on the promissory note. The obligation of the respondents had matured & they clearly defaulted when their
checks bounced. Per the acceleration clause, the whole debt became due one month after the date of the note because the
check representing their first installment bounced.
BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC., VS JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RAPID FORMING CORPORATION AND JOSE U. AROLLADO
G.R. NO. 179901
The petitioner Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. extended credit facilities to JAPRL Development Corporation amounting to P230, 000000
on March 28 2003. JAPRL defaulted in the payment of four trust receipts soon after the approval of its loan and later learned
from MRM management that JAPRL had altered and falsified its financial statements. Petitioner file a complaint for sum of
money with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachemnt againt respondents in the RTC of Mackati City.
ISSUE:
Whether Banco de Oro have the right to demand immediate payment from respondent’s legitimate obligation.
HELD:
YES. Section 40 of the General Banking Law provides that banks have the right to annul any credit accommodation or load , and
deman the immediate payment thereof, from borrowers proven to be guilty of fraud. Petitioner would then be entitled to the
immediate payment of P194, 493, 388.98 and other appropriate damages.
LUCMAN vs. MALAWI et al.
FACTS:
After the 1997 failure of election, respondents remained in office in a holdover capacity pursuant to the provisions of sec. 1. Of
R.A. No. 6676 and comelec resoulution no. 2888. Respondents attemted to open their respective barangay’s IRA’s bank
account, eventually, they allowed to open but not allowed to withdraw owing to the absence of the requisite Accountant’s
advise. They filed a special civil action for mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction to compel
petitioner to allow them to open and maintain deposit accounts and to withdraw therefrom.
Respondents Pangcoga, Sarip, Cadar, Macarambon and Usman testified during the trial that they were duly elected
chairpersons and testified further the refusal of the petitioner to allow the withdrawal despite of documents presented.
RTC rendered a decision commanding petioner to pay respondents excepct Alimatar Malawi who failed to testify, the IRA’s of
their respective barangays even without accountant’s advice. CA affirmed the decisions.
ISSUE:
Whether respondents have the cause of actions against the petitioner and whether the respondents have the legal personality
to institute the petition for mandamus in their own names.
HELD:
No. The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore not an available remedy since mandamus does not lie
to enforce the performance of contractual obligations. Furtheremore, respondents have no legal personality to institute
petition since the funds for which the bank accounts were created belong to the barangay headed by respondents. The case at
bar was not initiated by the barangays themselves. Neither did the barangay chairmen file the suit in representation of their
respective barangays. Only the barangays are the only lawful recipients of these funds

Credit Transaction Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credit Transaction Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credit Transaction Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs.

Wether the installments had already became due and demandable?

G.R. NO. 179901

LUCMAN vs. MALAWI et al.

You might also like