Solidbank v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp.
Facts: A loan was procured with the Solidbank by the Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp. The
Corporation authorizes the President and the Chairman of the Board Teresita R. C and
Jong Won Hong through a board resolution to secure an omnibus loan I the aggregate
amount of 30M. Series of loans were procured however the bank and the corporation
agreed to consolidate the loans to be payable in 20 Sept 1991. The corporation
executed promissory note in favor of the Bank evidencing its loan payable on 20 Sept
1991 affixing the signatures of Cu and Hong. The corporation stopped its operations
and it failed to pay the loans with the Solidbank.
Solidbank filed with the RTC a complaint against the Corporation and Sps. Hong
and Sps. Cu for collection of sum of money. In their answers to the complaint, Hong and
Cu alleged that petitioner had no cause of action against them because the loan was a
corporate act executed through its duly authorized representative. The court rendered
decision dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action of the petitioner against the
spouses. The trial court found and declared that petitioner failed to adduce the evidence
to prove personal liability of the respondent spouses for the claim of the petitioner.
Issue for evidence: May the court take judicial notice on bank practices?
Ruling: As to judicial notice on bank practices, the Court has taken judicial notice of
practices of banks and other institutions. The SC noted that it is their uniform practice,
before approving a loan, to investigate, examine, and assess would be borrowers’ credit
standard or real estate offered as security for the loan applied.
While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this practice under Section 1 of
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it nevertheless may do so under Section 2 of the same
Rule. The latter Rule provides that a court, in its discretion, may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
In this case, evidence need not be presented as to bank processes on granting loan to
a corporation. Under the law, a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from
its stock- holders or members. The allegation of the petitioner that the president and
chairman of the board are solidarily liable with the corporation may not prosper in a
claim against the corporation.
---------------------------------------
Lopez vs. People
Facts:
On the basis of a search warrant, police officers searched the house of Lopez.
During the search, kagawa Licup and Officer Esternon were ordered to search together
with the petitioner while the rest of the search team was outside of the house. The
petitioner assisted in the search but momentarily interrupted when one of the police
declared that the wife of Lopez was tucking something in her under wear that prompted
the tea to call a lady officer t conduct search to the wife. At that point, everyone except
Esternon was asked to leave the room and the petitioner was the asked by the police to
buy cigarettes. On the return of petitioner from the store, Esternon showed to the
petitioner that sachets of shabu were found under the Pillow.
At the trial court, among the people who came into direct contact with the seized
objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the specific purpose of establishing the
identity of the evidence. Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia, the person to whom
Esternon directly handed over the seized items for chemical analysis at the crime
laboratory, were not presented in court to establish the circumstances under which they
handled the subject items. The RTC convicted Lopez and later affirmed by the CA.
Ruling:
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the standard and normal
procedure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure custody of the
evidence, the blind reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. The
presumption of regularity is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary
proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.
The SC reversed the decision of the RTC and the CA. Lopez is hereby acquitted.
--------------------------------------
Home Insurance Corp vs. CA
Facts:
Two hydraulic engines on voyage from US to the Phl were insured by Nestle. Home
Insurance Corp herein is the insurer of the goods. From US, the goods were
transshipped into two vessels then were handed by E. Razon Arrastre, then by
Mabuhay Brokerage Corp. Mabuhay here delivered the goods to Nestle but the goods
were rejected because one of the engine was damaged as to its fan cover. Nestle claim
from E. Razon Arrastre, Ports Authority, Mabuhay Corp, and Home Insurance as to the
damaged good. Only Home Insurance Corp acceded to the claim and gave Nestle the
amount. At the RTC, Home Insurance Corp, as a subrogee, claims to Mabuhay
Brokerage Corp. Mabuhay denied the claim and filed a motion to dismiss. The RTC
dismissed the case on the ground that the claim has no legal and factual basis. The CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Ruling:
The petition for certiorari is hereby denied on the ground that the claim has no legal
and factual basis. At the trial court, only subrogation receipt and other supporting
documents which were photocopied were presented. Petitioner never presented the
Insurance policy covering the subject. The insurance policy is the basis of the claim, be
as it may, it was never presented. Therefore, applying the best evidence rule the
decision of the RTC and CA is affirmed.
