THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CPR PROMOTIONS AND MARKETING, INC. AND SPOUSES CORNELIO P. REYNOSO, JR. AND LEONIZA* F. REYNOSO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
To secure the loans, the spouses Reynoso executed two deeds of real estate mortgage on separate dates. The first mortgage, securing the amount of PhP 6,500,000, was executed on February 2, 1996 over real estate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 624835;3 the other was executed on July 18, 1996 over properties covered by TCT Nos. 565381,4 263421,5 and 2746826 to secure the amount of PhP 2,500,000. All of the mortgaged properties are registered under the spouses Reynoso's names, except for TCT No. 565381, which is registered under CPR Promotions.7chanrobleslaw
PN No. Date Amount 1. 277894 (BDS-143/97) February 7, 1997 P 6,50,0,000.00 2. 281728 (BD-216/97) July 21, 1997 P 959,034.20 3. 281735 (BD-222/97) July 31, 1997 P 508,580.83 4. 281736 (BD-225/97) August 12, 1997 P 291,732.50 5. 281737 (BD-226/97) August 12, 1997 P 157,173.12 6. 281745 (BD-229/97) August 22, 1997 P 449,812.25 7. 281747 (BDS-94854.696.00.999) September 3, 1997 P 105,000.00 8. 281749 (BD-236/97) September 11, 1997 P 525,233.93 9. 281750 (BD-238/97) September 12, 1997 P 1,310,099.36 10. 473410 (BD-239/97) September 19, 1997 P 251,725.00 11. 473414 (BD-240/97) September 19, 1997 P 288,975.66 12. 473412 (BD-244/97) September 26, 1997 P 62,982.53 13. 473411 (BD-245/97) September 26, 1997 P 156,038.85 14. 473413 (BD-251/97) October 3, 1997 P 767,512.30 15. 473431 (BD-252/97) October 6, 1997 P 557,497.45 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 12,891,397.78
We have the honor to request your good Office to conduct/undertake extra-judicial foreclosure sale proceedings under Act No. 3135, as amended, and other applicable laws on the properties covered by two Real Estate Mortgages executed by CPR PROMOTIONS & MARKETING INC., represented by its President Mr. Cornelio P. Reynoso and Treasurer Leoniza F. Reynoso and SPOUSES CORNELIO P. REYNOSO, JR., AND LEONIZA F. REYNOSO in favour of the mortgagee, METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, to secure fifteen (15) loans with a total principal amount of TWELVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN PESOS AND SEVENTY EIGHT CENTAVOS (P12,891,397.78), for breach of the terms of said mortgage.11chanrobleslawSubsequently, on May 5, 1998, the mortgaged properties covered by TCT Nos. 624835 and 565381 were sold at a public auction sale. MBTC participated therein and submitted the highest bid in the amount of PhP 10,374,000. The day after, on May 6, 1998, petitioner again participated and won in the public auction sale of the remaining mortgaged properties, having submitted the highest bid amounting to PhP 3,240,000. As a result, petitioner was issued the corresponding Certificates of Sale on July 15 and 16, 1998, covering the properties subjected to the first and second public auctions, respectively.
x x x x
As Annex "R", a copy of the Statement of Account, showing that the total amount due on the loans of the borrowers/mortgagers which remains unpaid and outstanding as of February 10, 1998 was ELEVEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY TRHEE PESOS AND NINETY NINE CENTAVOS (Pll,216,783.99) x x x.12 (emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [respondents], jointly and severally, to pay [petitioner] Metro bank, as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryRespondents timely moved for reconsideration of the RTC's Decision, which was denied through the trial court's February 7, 2008 Order. Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case to the CA.
a] the amount of PhP 2,628,520.73 plus stipulated interest and penalty charges stipulated in the Promissory Notes marked as Exhibits A to O until full payment thereof; and
b] the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the plaintiff-appellee Metrobank is ordered to refund or return to the defendants-appellants Cornelio and Leoniza Reynoso the amount of PhP 722,602.22 representing the remainder of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, with legal interest of six percent per annum from the date of filing of the answer with counterclaim on March 26, 1999, until paid.Supporting the reversal is the CA's finding that there was a sudden change in the terminology used, from "total amount due" to "principal amount."16 According to the CA, from February to May 1998, the amount sought to be collected ballooned from PhP 11,216,783.99 to PhP 12,891,397.78. From this apparently unexplained increase, the CA deduced that the increased amount must mean the principal and interest and other charges. Furthermore, the appellate court found that petitioner failed to prove that there was a deficiency, since the records failed to corroborate the claimed amount. As noted by the CA, "[Petitioner] did not even introduce the continuing surety agreement on which the trial court gratuitously based its decision."
SO ORDERED.15
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryAccordingly, a counterclaim is compulsory if: (a) it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; (b) it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount and nature, except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.27chanrobleslaw
In the application for extrajudicial foreclosure sale dated March 6, 1998, the total amount due as of February 10, 1998 was stated to be P11,216,783.99. The plaintiff categorically declared that P11,216,783.99 was the total amount due on February 10, 1998. By the time the auction sales were conducted, in May 1998, as reflected in the certificate of Sale, the principal amount was said to be P12,891,397.78. What is the meaning of the change from total amount due to principal amount? If from February to May 1998, a matter of three months, the amount sought to be collected ballooned to P12,891,397.78, the increase could have resulted from no other source than the interest and other charges under the promissory notes after the defendants incurred in default. Thus, the amount of P12,891,397.78 as of May 1998, must mean the principal and interest and other charges. The statement in the certificates of sale that it is the principal amount is a subtle change in language, a legerdemain to suggest that the amount does not include the interest and other charges.37 (emphasis added, citations omitted)In short, the CA concluded that the amount of PhP 12,891,397.78 is actually comprised of the PhP 11,216,783.99 due as of February 10, 1998, plus additional interest and other charges that became due from February 10, 1998 until the date of foreclosure on May 5, 1998.
This belies the findings of the CA that PhP 12,891,397.78 is the resulting value of PhP 11,216,783.99 plus interest and other charges. Consequently, the CA's conclusion that there is an excess of PhP 722,602.22, after deducting the amount of PhP 12,891,397.78 from the total bid price of PhP 13,614,000, is erroneous.
PN No. Amount 1. 277894 (BDS-143/97)38 P 6,500,000.00 2. 281728 (BD-216/97)39 P 959,034.20 3. 281735 (BD-222/97)40 P 508,580.83 4. 281736 (BD-225/97)41 P 291,732.50 5. 281737 (BD-226/97)42 P 157,173.12 6. 281745 (BD-229/97)43 P 449,812.25 7. 281747 (BDS-94854.696.00.999)44 P 105,000.00 8. 281749(BD-236/97)45 P 525,233.93 9. 281750 (BD-238/97)46 P 1,310,099.36 10. 473410 (BD-239/97)47 P 251,725.00 11. 473414 (BD-240/97)48 P 288,975.66 12. 473412 (BD-244/97)49 P 62,982.53 13. 473411 (BD-245/97)50 P 156,038.85 14. 473413 (BD-251/97)51 P 767,512.30 15. 473431 (BD-252/97)52 P 557,497.45 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 12,891,397.78
Applying the proceeds from the auction sales to the foregoing amount, according to petitioner, would result in a deficiency balance of PhP 2,443,143.43. Afterwards, the said amount allegedly earned interest for four (4) months in the amount of PhP 185,377.30,54 bringing petitioner's claim for deficiency judgment to a total of PhP 2,628,520.73.55chanrobleslaw
Statement of Account as of May 05, 1998 PN No. Principal Amt Outs. PDI Penalty 1 BD#216/97 489,219.20 54,808.77 49,166.53 2 BD#222/97 167,289.35 18,613.61 16,310.71 3 BD#225/97 291,732.50 32,683.72 27,422.86 4 BD#226/97 44,694.50 5,007.24 4,201.28 5 BD#229/97 435,229.25 48,760.10 44,393.38 6 BD#238/97 365,238.55 40,918.83 33,236.71 7 BD#233/97 105,000.00 11,763.50 9,082.50 8 BD#244/97 62,982.53 7,056.13 5,290.53 9 BD#236/97 497,649.70 56,135.10 38,070.20 10 BD#240/97 145,950.00 16,463.20 11,165.18 11 BD#245/97 156,038.85 17,481.55 11,897.43 12 BD#239/97 210,421.50 22,605.52 15,360.77 13 BD#251/97 572,470.15 64,574.86 38,232.57 14 BD#252/97 557,497.45 47,896.46 31,110.63 16 BDS#143/97 6,500,000.00 573,681.89 336,818.28 17 BDS#218/97 1,800,000.00 93,536.05 74,401.15 18 Fire Insurance 49,238.69 0.00 1,698.73 TOTAL 12,450,652.22 1,111,986.53 747,859.44 GRAND TOTAL 14,310,498.19
Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. — The amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be ascertained by the court, or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. (emphasis added)Verily, there can only be a deficit when the proceeds of the sale is not sufficient to cover (1) the costs of foreclosure proceedings; and (2) the amount due to the creditor, inclusive of interests and penalties, if any, at the time of foreclosure.
57. Firstly, it should be noted that respondents' total unpaid obligations inclusive of interest and penalties as of 10 February 1998 amounted to Php 11,216,783.99. This amount was the subject of petitioner Metrobank's Petitions for Extra]udicial Foreclosure of Mortgage and NOT Php 12,891,397.78 which is the total principal amount of respondents' loan obligations at the time when they obtained said loans as shown in the Promissory Notes and the Certificates of Sale. After the execution of the Promissory Notes, payments were made, although insufficient, which resulted in the balance of PhP 11,216,783.99 as of February 1198 inclusive of interest and penalties.58 xxxIf the total amount due as of February 10, 1998 is PhP 11,216,783.99 is already inclusive of interests and penalties, the principal amount, exclusive of interests and charges, would naturally be lower than the PhP 11,216,783.99 threshold. How petitioner made the determination in its Statement of Account that the principal amount due on the date of the auction sale is PhP 12,450,652.22 is then questionable, nay impossible, unless respondents contracted another loan anew.
As can be gleaned, petitioner failed to sufficiently explain during the proceedings how it came up with the alleged "deficiency" in the amount of PhP 2,443,143.43, as per the Statement of Account. Reversing the formula, petitioner's claim would only be mathematically possible if the missing interest and penalties for the three-month period—from February 10, 1998 to May 6, 1998—amounted to PhP 3,047,954,73,59 which is inconsistent with MBTC's declaration in its Statement of Account as of May 5, 1998.60 Needless to say, this amount is not only unconscionable, it also finds no support from any of the statement of accounts and loan stipulations agreed upon by the parties.
PhP 11,216,783.99 Total outstanding obligation as of February 10, 1998 1,373,238.04 Add: Alleged May 5, 1998 public auction sale expenses (no Consistent data) Add: Additional interests and charges earned between February 10, 1998 to May 5, 1998 (no consistent data) Subtotal: Amount due as of May 5, 1998 10,374,000.00 Less: May 5 Bid Price to be applied to the amount due 419,166.67 Add: Alleged May 6, 1998 public auction sale expenses (no consisted data) Add: Interests and charges earned from May 5 to 6, 1998 3,240,000.00 Less: May 6 Bid Price to be applied to the amount due PhP 2,443,143.43 Total: Deficiency reflected in the Statement of Account from May 5 to September 18, 1998
1. The fifteen (15) promissory notes (Exhibits A to O);Curiously, petitioner never offered as evidence receipts proving payment of filing fees, publication expenses, Sheriffs Commission on Sale, attorney's fee, registration fee for the Certificate of Sale, insurance premium and other miscellaneous expenses, all of which MBTC claims that it incurred. Instead, petitioner urges the Court to take judicial notice of the following expenses:64cralawred
2. Continuing Surety Agreement (Exhibit P);
3. Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibits Q & R);
4. Petition for Sale under Act. No. 3135, as amended (Exhibit S);
5. Notices of Sheriff s Sale (Exhibits T & U);
6. Affidavits of Publication (Exhibits V & W);
7. Certificates of Posting and a Xerox copy thereof (Exhibits X & Y);
8. Certificates of Sale (Exhibits Z & AA);
9. Demand Letters (Exhibits BB & CC); and
10. Statement of Account (Exhibit DD).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner's argument is untenable.
May 5, 1998 auction sale expenses Filing Fee PhP 52,084.00Publication Expenses 24,267.75Sheriffs Commission on Sale 207,560.00Registration fee and other Miscellaneous Expenses 32,644.50Attorney's Fees (10% of total amount claimed) 1,005,744.37Fire Insurance 50,937.42 Sub-total PhP 1,373,238.04May 6, 1998 auction sale expenses Publication Expenses 24,267.75Sheriffs Commission on Sale 64,880.00Registration fee and other Miscellaneous Expenses 16,593.00Attorney's Fees (10% of total amount claimed) 313,425.92 Sub-total PhP 419,166.67
In determining the compensation of an attorney, the following circumstances should be considered: the amount and character of the services rendered; the responsibility imposed; the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy, or involved in the employment; the skill and experience called for in the performance of the service; the professional standing of the attorney; the results secured; and whether or not the fee is contingent or absolute, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is to be contingent than when it is not. From the stipulation in the mortgage contract earlier quoted, it appears that the agreed fee is 10% of the total indebtedness, irrespective of the manner the foreclosure of the mortgage is to be effected. The agreement is perhaps fair enough in case the foreclosure proceedings is prosecuted judicially but, surely, it is unreasonable when, as in this case, the mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially, and all that the attorney did was to file a petition for foreclosure with the sheriff concerned. x x x (emphasis added)Similarly, in Bank of the Philippine Islands, Inc. v. Spouses Norman and Angelina Yu,66 the Court reduced the claim for attorney's fees from 10% to 1% based on the following reasons: (1) attorney's fee is not essential to the cost of borrowing, but a mere incident of collection; (2) 1% is just and adequate because the mortgagee bank had already charged foreclosure expenses; (3) attorney's fee of 10% of the total amount due is onerous considering the rote effort that goes into extrajudicial foreclosures.
In demanding payment of a deficiency in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, proving that there is indeed one and what its exact amount is, is naturally a precondition thereto. The same goes with a claim for reimbursement of foreclosure expenses, as here. In this regard, it is elementary that the burden to prove a claim rests on the party asserting such. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.68 For having failed to adequately substantiate its claims, We cannot sustain the finding of the trial court that respondents are liable for the claimed deficiency, inclusive of foreclosure expenses. Neither can We sustain the CA's finding that respondents are entitled to the recovery of the alleged excess payment.
In light of the foregoing, the Court need not belabor the other assigned errors.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 28, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 91424 and its February 13, 2012 Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of refund in favor of respondents in the amount of P722,602.22 with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is hereby DELETED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Peralta, Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Leoriza in some parts of the records.
1Rollo, pp. 37-44. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guarina III and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Rruselas, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios.
2 Id. at 45-46.
3 Records, p. 116.
4 Id. at 131.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 220.
8 Id. at 214.
9 An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real-Estate Mortgages.
10Rollo, p. 221.
11 Id. at 73.
12 Id. at 76.
13 Penned by Judge Winlove M. Dumayas.
14 CA rollo, p. 20.
15Rollo, p. 43.
16 Id. at 42.
17 Id. at 23.
18 Id. at 24.
19 Id. at 25.
20 Id. at 25-26.
21 Id. at 116-126.
22 Id. at 124.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 120.
26 Id.
27Sps. Mendiola v. CA, G.R. No. 159746, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 27.
28Calibre Traders, Inc. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161431, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 34; citing Sandejas v. Ignacio, Jr., G.R No. 155033, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 61, 77, citing Tan v. Kaakhay Finance Corporation, 452 Phil. 637, 646-647 (2003), Intestate Estate of Dalisay v. Hon. Marasigan, 327 Phil. 298, 301 (1996) and Quintanilla v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 811, 819 (1997).
29 Id.; citing Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, 402 Phil. 962, 972 (2001).
30 Section 8, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court on the filing of compulsory counterclaims provides that "[a] compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein." See Sps. Mendiola v. CA, supra note 27.
31 Section 2, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides that: "A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross- claim, not set up shall be barred."
32 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM17. By instituting such a harassment (sic), baseless and unfounded complaint, your defendants spouses Cornelio P. Reynoso, Jr. and Leoniza F. Reynoso and their three (3) children suffered and continuously suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, shame and humiliation, compensable in terms of moral damages in the sum of no less than P500,000.00.33 Relief or Prayer
18. To give an example to society, particularly to a giant and very powerful bank like the plaintiff Metrobank, an (sic) examplary (sic) damages shall be assessed of (sic) not less than P250,000.00, so that in future transactions, small businessmen shall not be at the mercy of said universal banking entity.
19. To protect the rights and interests of defendants, they engaged the services of the undersigned counsel and have (sic) obligated to pay the sum of P200,000.00 by way of attorney's fee (sic) plus P2,000.00 for every hearing. [Records, p. 68]WHEREFORE, all premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals that it REVERSE, ANNUL, AND SET ASIDE the "Decision" dated 11 October 2007, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 59, in Civil Case No. 99-239, as well as its "Order" dated 7 February 2008 in the same case, for being in contravention of the admitted and established facts, and for failure of the "Complaint" to state a cause of action as against the [respondents].34 Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
IN ITS STEAD, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals that it issue a ruling in favor of the [respondents] and adversely against the [petitioner], under the following terms and undertakings:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x
B. Ordering the Ipetitioner] to return to the [respondents| the sum of Seven Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Two Pesos & Twenty-Two Centavos (Php 722,602.22), representing the excess of the bid prices of the foreclosed real properties over the liability of the [respondent] to the former, with interest until the same is fully-paid. [CA rollo, p. 61]
35Fernando Co v. Una Vargas, G.R. No. 195167, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 451; citing Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 1; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 150; Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550 (2004).
36 More explicitly, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may be reviewed by this Court in the following instances:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Fernando Co v. Lina Vargas, id.; citing Development Dank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 171982, August 18, 2010)37Rollo, p. 42.
38 Id. at 52. Annex "E"
39 Id. at 53. Annex "F"
40 Id. at 54. Annex "G"
41 Id. at 55. Annex "H"
42 Id. at 56. Annex "I"
43 Id. at 57. Annex "J"
44 Id. at 58. Annex "K"
45 Id. at 59. Annex "L"
46 Id. at 60. Annex "M"
47 Id. at 61. Annex "N"
48 Id. at 63. Annex "O"
49 Id. at 65. Annex "P"
50 Id. at 67. Annex "Q"
51 Id. at 69. Annex "R"
52 Id. at 71. Annex "S"
53 Records, p. 325.
54 Id. at 51.Statement of Account - CPR Marketing From May 05 To Sept. 18, 98"55 Id.
Deficiency P 2,443,143.43Interest (May 05 to May 19 @ 22.151%ER/14D) P 21,045.92(May 19 to May 25 @ 21,115%ER/6D) 8,597.83(May 25 to May 26 @ 20.081%ER/1D) 1,362.80(May 26 to June 16 @ 19.821ER/21D) 28,248.24(June 16 to July 01 @ 20.340%ER/15D) 20,705.64(July 01 to July 09 @ 21.115%ER/8D) 11,463.77(July 09 to July 13 @ 20.598%ER/4D) 5,591.54(July 13 to July 14 @ 20.340%ER/1D) 1,380.38(July 15 to Aug. 11 @ 19.563%ER/27D) 35,846.41(Aug. 11 to Aug. 12 @ 19.821%ER/1D) 1,345.15(Aug. 12 to Aug. 18 @ 20.469%ER/6D) 8,334.78(Aug. 18 to Aug. 24 @ 21.115%ER/6D) 8,597.83(Aug. 24 to Aug. 25 @ 19.583%ER/1D) 1,327.64(Aug. 25 to Sept. 18 @ 18.532%ER/24D) 30,184.22TOTAL P185,377.30GRAND TOTAL P2,628,520.73
56 See DBP v. Tomeldan, G.R. No. 51269, November 17, 1980, 101 SCRA 171; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Zaragoza, No. L-23493, August 23, 1978, 84 SCRA 668; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Murang, No. L-29130, August 8, 1975, 66 SCRA 141; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Vela, de Moll, No. L-25802, January 31, 1972, 43 SCRA 82; Philippine Bank of Commerce v. De Vera, No. L-18816, December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 1026.
57Prudential Bank v. Martinez, No. L-51768, September 14, 1990, 189 SCRA 612.
58Rollo, p. 25.
59 PhP 2,443,143.43 + PhP 3,240,000.00 - PhP 419,166.67 + PhP 10,374,000.00 - PhP 373,238.04 - 11,216,783.99 = PhP 3,047,954,73
60 PhP 1,111,986.53 + PhP 747,859.44 = PhP 1,859,845.97
61 Records, pp. 1-6.
62 Id. at 75-77.
63 Id. at 87-96.
64Rollo, pp. 30-31.
65 No. L-22973, January 30, 1968, 22 SCRA 359.
66 G.R. No. 184122, January 20, 2010, 610 SCRA 412.
67Rollo, pp. 27-28.
68 Resort Hotels Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180439 December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 16; citing Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary