Rule 16, Sec. 1, Star Two v. Ko
Uploaded by
Vance CeballosRule 16, Sec. 1, Star Two v. Ko
Uploaded by
Vance CeballosNAME: QUEENIE ANNE C.
PUNO
TOPIC: Paid, Waived, Abandoned, Extinguished (RULE 16, SECTION 1,)
REFERENCE: STAR TWO V. KO, G.R. NO. 185454, MARCH 23, 2011
Facts:
Jianshe Motorcycle Industries Philippines Corporation (Jianshe) obtained various credit
facilities or loan accommodations from Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC)
from 2003-2004 to finance its importation of motorcycles, motorcycle parts, motorcycle
accessories, and other related goods. To secure the goods imported by Jianshe, RCBC
required it to execute trust receipts over these goods. Moreover, to secure payment of all
existing and future obligations of Jianshe to RCBC, respondents Howard Ko, Jimmy Ong,
Min Min See Ko, and Grace Ng Ong executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement[3] dated
September 3, 2002, with a limited liability of P50 M.
Despite demand, Jianshe failed to pay its obligations. RCBC thus filed a Complaint for
Specific Perfomance with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Jianshe as
principal and respondents as sureties, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City
on December 27, 2005.
On February 6, 2006, Howard Ko and Min Min See Ko filed a Motion to Discharge
Preliminary Attachment for having been improperly or irregularly issued. RCBC, however,
opposed the [Link] March 17, 2006, Howard Ko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that RCBC's claim had already been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise
extinguished. Min Min See Ko adopted Howard Ko's motion.
Issue:
Whether or not the obligation of Jianshe had already been extinguished?
Ruling:
YES.
The evidence in favor of the [respondents] consisted of no less than RCBC documents
showing that said bank debited from their various accounts the amounts which Jianshe
owed RCBC under the trust receipts. In the subject petition, the petitioner has not claimed
that these evidence were fabricated. It cannot say that, if present at the hearing or, if there
would be another hearing, it could prove that the RCBC documents were false. It cannot
because those were genuine RCBC documents.
The Court notes that the pieces of evidence presented by respondents were documents,
such as official receipts, trust debit advices, and passbooks, issued by no less than
petitioner itself. Payments were made by respondents through the active participation of
RCBC, primarily by debiting the subject amounts from respondents' accounts with the
bank. Admittedly, it was Jianshe, as the principal, which owed RCBC. Nowhere in
petitioner's pleadings was it claimed that respondents also owed the bank aside from their
obligation as surety to secure the principal obligation of Jianshe. Undoubtedly, the debited
amounts from Howard Ko's accounts were made to satisfy his obligation as surety.
Petitioner cannot now claim that the payments were made by Jianshe as principal and not
by respondents as sureties simply because the receipts were issued in the name of Jianshe.
As aptly observed by the CA, the issuance of the receipts in the name of Jianshe was done
only to indicate that it was the principal obligor. The issuance of the receipts does not
erase the fact that various amounts were debited from the accounts of Howard Ko, and
certificates of time deposit in the name of Howard Ko were applied as payment for
Jianshe's obligations.
