PNB V Giron-Roque

3B SPCL Digests
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v FELINA GIRON- from her PNB account, Felina filed a complaint for
ROQUE, DR. GLORIA M. APOSTOL AND HUSBAND annulment of foreclosure sale and reinstatement of
DR. EDWARD APOSTOL unused credit accommodation with damages before
September 19, 2019 the RTC against both PNB and Spouses Apostol,
praying, inter alia, that: (a) the second loan in the
amount of P120,000.00, together with interests and
G.R. No.: 240311 Ponente: Perlas Bernabe
penalties, be declared null and void; (b) the amount of
P16,000.00 be declared as valid payment of her only
Related Article: Tickler:
availment of the credit arrangement; and (c) the
extrajudicial foreclosure over her property be declared
null and void.
Doctrine of the Case
In defense, Spouses Apostol maintained, among
others, that Gloria was duly authorized by Felina to
withdraw from the latter's credit line. For its part, PNB
claimed that it had exercised the required due diligence
Parties – Roles before allowing the withdrawal. It added that there was
no valid tender of payment of the first loan, as it was
Felina – purported Mortagor tendered one (1) day before the foreclosure date and
PNB - Mortgagor the amount was not enough to cover interest and
penalty. By way of a cross-claim, PNB averred that in
the event Felina's claim is sustained, Spouses Apostol
Facts should be ordered to reimburse the amount of
P119,820.00 which the latter received from it.
On April 7, 1995, Felina, a Filipino resident of the
United States of America (USA), obtained a credit line RTC Ruling
from PNB in the amount of P230,000.00, which was
secured by a real estate mortgage of a real property. The RTC ruled in Felina's favor, and accordingly: (a)
On February 10, 1997, she availed of a P50,000.00 declared the extrajudicial foreclosure null and void; (b)
loan (first loan) from the credit line, as evidenced by a directed PNB to reinstate the unused credit
promissory note of even date, with a due date on accommodation of Felina; and (c) ordered PNB and
August 9, 1997. Spouses Apostol to pay Felina attorney's fees in the
amount of P100,000.00, plus costs of suit.
When Felina was in the USA sometime between April
to August 1997, she purportedly filed, through Gloria, a The RTC found that the subject check was forged,
stand-by application for further availment of the credit considering that Felina could not have executed it as
line in the amount of P120,000.00 (second loan). she was in the USA at that time, and upon comparison
Subsequently, she discovered that Gloria withdrew with the promissory note dated February 10, 1997, her
from her account with PNB a check (subject check) for alleged signature in the subject check was found to
the second loan in the amount of P119,820.00. PNB have not been written by one and the same person.
demanded payment of both loans but instead of Thus, the RTC concluded that PNB was remiss of the
paying, Felina requested for an in-depth investigation diligence required of banking institutions in allowing the
of the second loan withdrawal and encashment of the forged check in
favor of Gloria, who was not proven to be duly
On December 10, 1998, Felina sent a letter to PNB authorized by Felina. Notably, however, the RTC made
inclusive of a cashier's check for the full payment of the no pronouncement as to the validity of Felina's tender
first loan. However, the same was returned because of payment in relation to the first loan.
accoding to PNB, the amount was insufficient to cover
the amount, insterests, and penalties of both loans. PNB moved for reconsideration which was, however,
Thereafter, PNB proceeded with the extrajudicial denied
foreclosure of Felina's real property
CA Ruling
Claiming that her signature in the subject check was
forged and that Gloria was not authorized to withdraw
Pulido, Alwin
3B SPCL Digests
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification,

further ordering Spouses Apostol to pay PNB the
amount of P119,820.00, and deleting the award of
attorney's fees in favor of Felina. It held that the
foreclosure sale had no basis since the loan in the
amount of P120,000.00 was void, considering that the
subject check was forged and Gloria was not duly
authorized to withdraw from PNB. It emphasized that,
for being in an industry imbued with public interest,
PNB should have exercised extraordinary diligence in
handling the transaction
ISSUE:
Whether PNB was remiss of the diligence required in

banks in handling transactions
Ruling:
Yes.
PNB was remiss of the diligence required of a

banking institution in allowing the withdrawal and
encashment of the subject check representing the
second loan
Disposition:
Petition is denied.
(a) respondent Felina Giron-Roque is given a period of

sixty (60) days to settle the remaining balance of her
outstanding loan obligation to petitioner Philippine
National Bank (PNB) amounting to P14,565.58 plus
interests and penalties from September 15, 1998 to
December 21, 1998; and
(b) the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the

real property registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-45548 shall be without prejudice to PNB's
availment of the proper remedies, should the loan
obligation remain unsettled after the lapse of the
aforementioned period.
Pulido, Alwin

PNB V Giron-Roque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNB V Giron-Roque

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PNB V Giron-Roque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3B SPCL Digests

The CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification,

Whether PNB was remiss of the diligence required in

PNB was remiss of the diligence required of a

(a) respondent Felina Giron-Roque is given a period of

(b) the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the

You might also like