GR 159748

Facts
Spouses Virgilio and Digna Calina availed of an agricultural loan (Deep-Sea Fishing)
agreement through Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in the amount of P1,
356,000.00 on different release by tranches depending on the progress as stipulated in
the agreement in the span of 5 years. The couple were made to execute a promissory
note in favor of DBP with 12% interest per annum.
On the August 1975, DBP released the first tranche of the loan for the commencing of
the construction of the vessel in Palawan.
In September 1975, the second tranche was released for the purchase of a Cummins
Marine Diesel Engine and was placed in storage. At this point, DBP has already released
a total of P 451,589.80.
On January 1976, typhoon Asyang hit Palawan and totally destroyed the boat under
construction. The couple informed the bank of its intention to abandon the project due to
the typhoon destruction. He further requested to grant him 60 days to sell the Cummins
Diesel Engine for the purpose of paying its obligation.
On October 1978, DBP wrote a letter demanding payment of P 666,195.55 representing
the whole obligations plus interest.
On December 1980, DBP filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer of issuance of
writ of preliminary attachment for the Cummins Diesel Engine.
The couple filed an answer with counterclaim for payment of damages.
In an effort to settle their obligations, they informed DBP of a buyer to purchase the
Cummins Diesel engine for P 600,000.00 but DBP refused and resorted instead to public
auction. However, there were no participants in the auction.
DBP later decided to sell the engine to that interested buyer but loses interest thereafter.
The engine remained with the couple. DBP and the couple later agreed that the writ of
preliminary attachment be lifted so that the engine can be sold to other prospects.
Eventually , the engine was sold at P 550,000.00 and was used to settle the obligation.
However, DBP contented that the obligation was not fully paid. Hence , it filed a case
before the RTC.
The RTC dismissed the trial in favor with the couple. DBP appealed to CA and was
granted .
The couple filed an Appeal under Rule 45 before the SC.
Issue:
WON spouses Virgilio and Digno Calina are still liable for their obligations despite
payment from the sale of the Cummins Diesel Engine.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that the spouses must pay remaining balance of the obligation plus the
12% per annum as interest of the obligation while disallowing the Attorneys fees which
was previously ordered by the CA.
GR 142668
UCPB and Luis Ma. Ongsiapco VS Ruben Basco
Facts
Respondent Ruben E. Basco had been employed with the petitioner United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB) for seventeen (17) years. He was also a stockholder thereof and
owned 804 common shares of stock at the par value of P1.00. He likewise maintained a
checking account with the bank at its Las Pias Branch under Account No. 117-001520-6.
Aside from his employment with the bank, the respondent also worked as an underwriter
at the United Coconut Planters Life Association (Coco Life), a subsidiary of UCPB since
December, 1992. The respondent also solicited insurance policies from UCPB employees.
On June 19, 1995, the respondent received a letter from the UCPB informing him of the
termination of his employment with the bank for grave abuse of discretion and authority,
and breach of trust in the conduct of his job as Bank Operations Manager of its Olongapo
Branch. The respondent thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
salaries, and damages against the bank in the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), docketed as NLRC Cases Nos. 00-09-05354-92 and 00-09-05354-93. However,
the respondent still frequented the UCPB main office in Makati City to solicit insurance
policies from the employees thereat. He also discussed the complaint he filed against the
bank with the said employees.
The respondent was also employed by All-Asia Life Insurance Company as an
underwriter. At one time, the lawyers of the UCPB had an informal conference with him
at the head office of the bank, during which the respondent was offered money so that
the case could be amicably settled. The respondent revealed the incident to some of the
bank employees.
On November 15, 1995, Luis Ma. Ongsiapco, UCPB First Vice-President, Human Resource
Division, issued a Memorandum to Jesus Belanio, the Vice-President of the Security
Department, informing him that the respondents employment had been terminated as of
June 19, 1995, that the latter filed charges against the bank and that the case was still
on-going. Ongsiapco instructed Belanio not to allow the respondent access to all bank
premises. Attached to the Memorandum was a passport-size picture of the respondent.
The next day, the security guards on duty were directed to strictly impose the security
procedure in conformity with Ongsiapcos Memorandum.
On December 7, 1995, the respondent, through counsel, wrote Ongsiapco, requesting
that such Memorandum be reconsidered, and that he be allowed entry into the bank
premises.
In many instances , the respondent entered the bank for a business transaction but was
approached by security guards showing the Ongsiapco memo. However, the respondent

insist on conducting business which the guards eventually agreed. The respondent
claimed he was humiliated, his rights violated hence this filing of a case.
Issue:
WON UCPB is liable for the violation of his rights.
Ruling
We rule in favor of the petitioners.
The evidence on record shows that Casil was in the working area of the ATM section on
the ground floor when he motioned the respondent to approach him and receive the
check. The respondent then stood up and walked towards the direction of Casil.
Indubitably, the respondent was set to enter the working area, where non-employees
were prohibited entry; from there, the respondent could go up to the upper floors of the
banks premises through the elevator or the stairway. Caspe and the company guard had
no other recourse but prevent the respondent from going to and entering such working
area. The security guards need not have waited for the respondent to actually
commence entering the working area before stopping the latter. Indeed, it would have
been more embarrassing for the respondent to have started walking to the working area
only to be halted by two uniformed security guards and disallowed entry, in full view of
bank customers. It bears stressing that the security guards were polite to the respondent
and even apologized for any inconvenience caused him. The respondent could have just
motioned to Casil to give him the check at the lobby near the tellers booth, instead of
proceeding to and entering the working area himself, which the respondent knew to be
an area off-limits to non-employees. He did not.
The respondent failed to adduce evidence other than his testimony that people in the
ground floor of the petitioner bank saw him being stopped from proceeding to the
working area of the bank. Evidently, the respondent did not suffer embarrassment,
inconvenience or discomfort which, however, partakes of the nature of damnum absque
injuria. Hence the court cannot award nominal damages.
On the third issue, we now hold that the petitioner bank is not entitled to damages and
attorneys fees as its counterclaim. There is no evidence on record that the respondent
acted in bad faith or with malice in filing his complaint against the petitioners.
GR 156168
Equitable Banking Corporation VS Jose Calderon
Facts
Sometime in September 1984, Calderon applied and was issued an Equitable
International Visa card. The said Visa card can be used for both peso and dollar
transactions within and outside the Philippines. The credit limit for the peso transaction
is TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS; while in the dollar transactions, Calderon is
required to maintain a dollar account with a minimum deposit of $3,000.00, the balance
of dollar account shall serve as the credit limit.

n April 1986, Calderon together with some reputable business friends and associates,
went to Hongkong for business and pleasure trips. Specifically on 30 April 1986, Calderon
accompanied by his friend, Ed De Leon went to Gucci Department Store located at the
basement of the Peninsula Hotel (Hongkong). There and then, Calderon purchased
several Gucci items (t-shirts, jackets, a pair of shoes, etc.). The cost of his total purchase
amounted to HK$4,030.00 or equivalent to US$523.00. Instead of paying the said items
in cash, he used his Visa card (No. 4921 6400 0001 9373) to effect payment thereof on
credit. He then presented and gave his credit card to the saleslady who promptly
referred it to the store cashier for verification. Shortly thereafter, the saleslady, in the
presence of his friend, Ed De Leon and other shoppers of different nationalities, informed
him that his Visa card was blacklisted. Calderon sought the reconfirmation of the status
of his Visa card from the saleslady, but the latter simply did not honor it and even
threatened to cut it into pieces with the use of a pair of scissors.
Deeply embarrassed and humiliated, and in order to avoid further indignities, Calderon
paid cash for the Gucci goods and items that he bought.
Upon arrival in the Philippines , he filed a complaint for damages against the bank.
Issue
WON , the Bank is liable
Ruling
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which
results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for
the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in
which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases the
consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for
damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These
situations are often called damnum absque injuria.
In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which
he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which
the defendant owed to the plaintiff- a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal
responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort
damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus,
there must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach
before damages may be awarded; and the breach of such duty should be the proximate
cause of the injury.
Moreover, the provision on automatic suspension without notice embodied in the same
Credit Card Agreement is couched in clear and unambiguous term, not to say that the
agreement itself was entered into by respondent who, by his own account, is a reputable
businessman engaged in business activities here and abroad.
On a final note, we emphasize that moral damages are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claim for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty
on the wrongdoer.

GR 169116
BPI vs SPS Ireneo and Liwanag Santiago, CENTROGEN by Edwin Santiago
Facts
CENTROGEN thru its President, Edwin Santiago contracted a loan in Far East Bank and
Trust Company and executed a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land. However,
they incurred default in payment and the obligation becomes due and demandable.
Subsequently, BPI and FEBTC merged with the former as the surviving corporation which
assumed all rights, benefits and liabilities. Eventually, BPI filed an Extra-Judicial
Foreclosure of Real Estate over the said property.
Upon receipt of the Notice of Sale, the Spouses Santiago and Centrogen filed a Complaint
seeking the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Final
Injunction and in the alternative, for the annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage with BPI.

The complaint alleged that the initial loan obligation in the amount of P490,000.00,
including interest thereon has been fully paid. Such payment notwithstanding, the
amount was still included in the amount of computation of the arrears as shown by the
document of Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage filed by the latter.
Moreover, the Spouses Santiago and Centrogen contended that the original loan
agreement was for the amount of 5 Million but only 2 Million was released by petitioner
and as a result, the squalene project failed and the company groped for funds to pay its
loan obligations.
On 27 February 2003, BPI was summoned to file and serve its Answer and on the same
day, summons was served on the Branch Manager of BPI . Instead of filing an Answer,
BPI filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant and other procedural infirmities attendant to the filing of the complaint. BPI
claimed that the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch, was not one of those
authorized by Section 11, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court to receive summons on
behalf of the corporation. The summons served upon its Branch Manager, therefore, did
not bind the corporation. Also alleged lack of authorityof the person who signed. RTC
denied the MD and issued new summons.
The RTC granted the TRO to prevent foreclosure sale. BPI file MR but was denied hence
this petition with BPI alleging that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over its
person and consequently, the Order issued by the RTC, permanently enjoining the
foreclosure sale, was therefore void and does not bind BPI.
Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over BPI
YES. The Court acquired jurisdiction over BPI. The defect of the service of the original
summons was cured by the issuance of the new summons which was not questioned by
BPI.

1. There was substantial compliance. Although it may be true that the service of
summons was made on a person not authorized to receive the same in behalf of the
petitioner. Since it appears that the summons and complaint were in fact received by the
corporation through its said clerk, the Court finds that there was substantial compliance
with the rule on service of summons.
2. The ultimate test on the validity and sufficiency on service of summons is whether the
same and the attachments thereto where ultimately received by the corporation under
such circumstances that no undue prejudice is sustained by it from the procedural lapse
and it was afforded full opportunity to present its responsive pleadings. This is but in
accord with the entrenched rule that the ends of substantial justice should not be
subordinated to technicalities and, for which purpose, each case should be examined
within the factual milieu peculiar to it.
3. The Court also emphasized that there is no hard and fast rule pertaining to the
manner of service of summons. Rather, substantial justice demands that every case
should be viewed in light of the peculiar circumstances attendant to each.