You are on page 1of 1

PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. SPS.

LOPEZ, substituted by Joseph, Gilbert,


and Marlyn Joven. ISSUES:
(TOPIC) WON the CAs amended decision dated July 30, 2007 is final and executory. (NO,
DOCTRINE: (ON PROPER SERVICE) Planters filed on time)

FACTS: HELD:
1. Sps Lopez applied for a real estate loan amounting to 3M with Planters. This was for (TOPIC also the DOCTRINE) Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that if
construction of a 4-storey dormitory. Payable in 14 years with interest of 21% per service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by an affidavit of the person mailing
annum. They were also required to submit plans and to mortgage subject land. of facts showing compliance with Section 7, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and the registry
2. Amendment was made, interest became 23% and now payable within 3 years and receipt issued by the mailing office. However, the presentation of an affidavit and a
later was amended again to 25% interest per annum. registry receipt is not indispensable in proving service by registered mail. Other
3. Because of economic crisis, the value of peso dropped and thus Sps Lopez needed competent evidence, such as the certifications from the Philippine Post Office, may establish
extra funding, thus asked for 1.2M extra from Planters. the fact and date of actual service. These certifications are direct and primary pieces of
4. Entered into a THIRD amendment, and increased the loan to 4.2M with 27% interest evidence of completion of service.
and was shortened to 1 year. Increased the mortgage to 4.2M and also the bank again
increased the interest to 32%. We believe Planters Banks assertion that its motion for reconsideration dated August 22,
5. Later, Planters refused to release the remaining p700K. This led Sps Lopez to file 2007 was filed on time. The Manila Central Post Offices certification states that the amended
action for recission, contending that because of Planters refusal to relaease funds, decision was only dispatched from the Manila Central Post Office to the Makati Central Post
they filed to finish constructing their DORM. The action was one of Recission plus Office on August 2, 2007. On the other hand, the Makati Central Post Offices certification
damages. provides that Planters Banks actual receipt of the decision was on August 7, 2007. These
6. Defense of Planters was that spouses Lopez had no cause of action. It pointed out certifications conclusively show that Planters Banks counsel received the amended decision
that its refusal to release the loan was the result of the spouses Lopezs violations of on August 7, 2007 and not on August 2, 2007.
the loan agreement, namely: (1) non-submission of the accomplishment reports; and
(2) construction of a six-story building. As a counterclaim, Planters Bank prayed for Also, SC did not find merit in SPS LOPEZs argument that Planters motion for recon is
the payment of the overdue released loan in the amount of 3,500,000.00, with disallowed under Section2, Rule 52 ROC. There is a difference between AMENDED
interest and damages. JUDGEMENT and a SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGEMENT. In an amended judgment, the lower
7. Planters later foreclosed the mortgage beacause of default. court makes a thorough study of the original judgment and renders the amended and clarified
8. RTC in favor of Planters. it held that the spouses Lopez had no right to rescind the judgment only after considering all the factual and legal issues. The amended and clarified
loan agreements because they were not the injured parties. It maintained that the decision is an entirely new decision which supersedes or takes the place of the original
spouses Lopez violated the loan agreement by failing to submit accomplishment decision. On the other hand, a supplemental decision does not take the place of the original; it
reports and by deviating from the construction project plans only serves to add to the original decision.
9. CA sps died, thus substitution occurred. REVERSED RTC. It held that Planters
Banks refusal to release the loan was a substantial breach of the contract. It also Here, the CA promulgated an amended decision, hence Plantersmmay file a motion for recom
declared that Planters Bank was estopped from raising the issue of the spouses because the amended decision is an entirely new one.
Lopezs deviation from the construction project. Planters Bank conducted several
ocular inspections of the building from 1983 to 1987. Planters Bank continuously (SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS)
released partial amounts of the loan despite its knowledge of the construction of a SPS LOPEZ accomplished the required reports to Planters as evidenced.
six-story building. Also, as raised by Planters, they source their funds from DBP, but Planters is estopped from opposing Lopezs deviation from the project - whenever a party
the latter did not have enough to finance the loan. has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to
10. Upon motion for recon the CA modified its previous ruling the rescission of the believe that a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
contract and reconveyance of mortgaged property. litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
Equitable estoppel applies (inaction or silence amount to misrepresentation).
(RELATED TO TOPIC) Its refusal to release the remaining balance, however, was merely a slight or casual
11. SPS LOPEZ assert that the amended decision has already become final and breach as shown below. In other words, its breach was not sufficiently fundamental to
executory due to Planters Banks belated filing of a motion for reconsideration on defeat the object of the parties in entering into the loan agreement. Hence, rescission not
August 22, 2007. They point out that Planters Bank unequivocably stated in the allowed.
pleadings that it received a copy of the amended decision on August 2, 2007. SC REVERESED CA, SPS LOPEZ ordered to pay 3.5M plus interests.
Furthermore, they aver that Planters Banks motion for reconsideration is a second
motion for reconsideration disallowed by the Rules of Court. They highlight that
Planters Banks comment to the respondents motion for reconsideration sought the
reinstatement of the RTC ruling. Consequently, the comment is Planters Banks first
motion for reconsideration.