Short Title Spouses Nisce vs Equitable PCI Bank Digested by: Tamayo, Paolo Eric B.

Full Title THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 167434 February 19, 2007

SPOUSES RAMON M. NISCE and A. NATIVIDAD PARAS-NISCE, Petitioners,

vs.
EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC., Respondent.

Topic Doctrine of Separate Juridical Personality

Doctrine (Syllabus)
 PCI Capital is a subsidiary of PCI Bank but PCI Capital has an independent and separate juridical personality from the respondent PCI Bank, thus, any claim
against PCI capital is NOT a claim against PCI bank.
Statement of Facts

On November 26, 2002 the respondent bank as creditor-mortgagee filed for extrajudicial foreclosure. It sought to foreclose the real estate mortgage contracts
executed by Spouses Ramon and Natividad Nisce to secure their obligation under Promissory notes. The obligation of the petitioner spouses amounted to 34
Million (Natividad Nisce also has a suretyship agreement amounting to 57,000 dollars)

On January 28, 2003 spouses Nisce filed a complaint for nullity of the suretyship agreement.

Contention of the petitioners: That through their lawyer-son, they requested the bank to set off the peso equivalent with their obligation against their US dollar
account from PCI Capital Asia Limited, subsidiary bank in which the bank accepted their offer. Thus the petitioner spouses were surprised when they received a
demand letter from the respondent bank and later, a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure. The petitioner further contends that since they and the bank were creditor
and debtor to each other, their obligation should have been offset by legal compensation to their account with the Bank.

The Bank’s Contention: No cause of action for legal compensation since PCI capital asia limited was a different with separate and distinct personality.

Spouses Natividad’s story: Natividad Nisce frequently travelled abroad and needed access to foreign exchange that’s why she opened an account with PCI Bank
paseo de roxas branch. Natividad deposited $20,500 and tha bank transferred the $20,000 to PCI capital asia limited. The spouses secured a 20 million pesos loan
and another 13 million loan covered by separate PN’s. Partial payments were made and the spouses tried to settle the loan by seting off their collar account, the
bank accepted it through Rene Esteban.

The Bank’s Story: The balance of spouses under the 2 PNs failed to pay despite repeated demands and That the transfer cannot be made because they were
separate and distinct with each other.

The RTC granted the spouses writ of prelimirary injunction to preserve the status quo. The CA reserved and annulled the order issued by the RTC.
The CA ruled “For compensation to take place, the requirements under AER. 1278 of the CC and 1279 of the CC must be present. In this case, parties are not
mutually creditors and debtors of each other.

Issue Whether or not the account was extinguished by legal compensation?

Ruling NO. The requisites for legal compensation are the following:

(1) Each one of the obligors be bound principally, they be the same kind and quality
(2) Both debtors consist of sum of money
(3) Two debts be due
(4) They be liquidated and demandable

And that legal compensation takes place by operation of law, it operates even as against the will of the parties and even without their
consent.

In this case, PCI capital is a subsidiary of PCI bank, however, PCI capital has a independent and separate personality from respondent, PCI
Bank. Hence, any claim against PCI Capital is not a claim against PCI Bank. Further, there is no piercing of the veil in this case as the
liability will directly attach to PCI bank.
Dispositive IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against
Portion petitioners.

SO ORDERED.