![]() Danilo claimed that he recalled that sometime in 19, they both obtained loans in the amount of P19,600,000.00, P3,000,000.00 and P6,800,000.00 from Prudential Bank. Danilo claimed that Cristina called him and discussed the said transaction with the bank which he testified he could not fully remember the exact details. 9ĭanilo testified that Cristina, his co-petitioner in the present case, was his former wife and that he merely learned of the existence of the loan after he suddenly received a notice. Ciabal claimed that petitioners were duly informed and that respondent's counsel sent petitioners a demand letter dated which was received by Ramon Polangco. Ciabal explained that the principal obligation of petitioners was P12,500,000.00 and that based on the promissory notes, the total chargeable interest was 15%. ![]() On cross-examination, Ciabal testified that she was not an employee of BPI and Prudential Bank. Unfortunately, respondent did not receive any reply prompting it to refer the matter to their legal counsel for legal action. Ciabal testified that respondent tried to contact petitioners and even sent them demand letters. Ciabal testified that she was in charge of collection of bad and non-performing loans and that petitioners' loan account was one of the numerous accounts that was conveyed to respondent by BPI through a deed of assignment. 8ĭuring trial, Isabelita Martinez Ciabal (Ciabal) testified that she was a Director and Remedial Account Officer for respondent since 2009. Petitioners also averred that the complaint should have been dismissed outright on the ground of laches since the complaint was filed only after almost 10 years from the maturity dates of the two loans. ![]() Petitioners claimed that respondent had the burden of proving its claim and that no comprehensive records were ever presented to them. However, as far as they knew, that loan obligation had already been substantially paid. In petitioners' Answer, petitioners admitted that they loaned from Prudential Bank. Having failed to heed respondent's repeated demands, respondent filed a complaint with the RTC against petitioners. On May 17, 2007, respondent sent petitioners another demand letter to settle their outstanding obligation. On September 19, 2006, respondent sent a notice to petitioners directing them to pay their unpaid obligation. On May 12, 2006, BPI assigned petitioners' indebtedness to respondent through a deed of assignment and BPI's rights and interest over the said receivables were then ceded to respondent. Respondent alleged that petitioners defaulted in their contractual obligations and left an unpaid obligation of P10,000,000.00 evidenced by Promissory Note dated Januand P2,500,000.00 evidenced by Promissory Note dated October 6, 1997. Prudential Bank then merged with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and BPI became the surviving corporation. 5 Respondent alleged that petitioners applied for and were granted loans in the total amount of P20,000,000.00 by Prudential Bank. On January 14, 2008, respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages 4 against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. (respondent) the amount of P10,000,000.00 plus interest of 12% per annum from Septemto Jand 6% interest per annum from Juntil the obligation is fully paid. 107364 which ordered petitioners Danilo Decena (Danilo) and Cristina Castillo (Cristina petitioners) to pay respondent Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc. ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., RESPONDENT.īefore the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated Augand the Resolution 3 dated of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. DANILO DECENA AND CRISTINA CASTILLO (FORMERLY DECENA), PETITIONERS, VS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |