Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the “Independence Principle” on Letter of Credit may be invoked by a beneficiary. (YES)
2. WON injunction is the proper remedy to restrain the allegedly wrongful draws on the securities. (NO)
Petitioner’s argument:
RTC and CA improperly relied on the “independence principle” on the letters of credit when this case falls within the
“fraud exception rule”.
Luzon knowing misinterpreted the existence of delay despite its knowledge that the issue was still pending arbitration
to be able to draw against the securities.
Luzon should be ordered to return proceeds of the securities.
Injunction was the appropriate remedy obtainable from the local courts.
Respondent SBC’s argument:
Invoking the independence principle, it was under no obligation to look into the validity or accuracy of the certification
submitted by Luzon or into the latter’s capacity or entitlement to so certify.
Respondent ANZ’s argument:
Its actions could not be regarded as unjustified in the view of the prevailing independence principle under which it had
no obligation to ascertain the truth of Luzon’s allegations (Similar to SBC)
HOLDING/RATIO:
1. Yes, the beneficiary can invoke the independence principle.
In a letter of credit transaction where the credit is stipulated as irrevocable, there is a definite undertaking by the
issuing bank to pay the beneficiary provided that the stipulated documents are presented and the conditions of the
credit are complied with, and particularly, the independence principle liberates the issuing bank from the duty of
ascertaining compliance by the parties of the main contract. As it is, the independence doctrine works for the benefit
of both issuing bank and the beneficiary.
To say that the independence principle may only be invoked by the issuing banks would render nugatory the
purpose for which the letters of credit are used in commercial transactions. Letters of credit are employed by the
parties desiring to enter into commercial transactions, not for the benefit of the issuing bank but mainly for the benefit
of the parties of the original transaction. With the letter of credit, the party who obtained the letter of credit may
present it to the beneficiary as a security to convince the latter to enter into the business transaction. On the other
hand, the beneficiary can be rest assured of being empowered to call on the letter of credit as a security in case the
commercial transaction does not push through, or the party who presented the letter of credit fails to perform his part.
Prior resolution of any dispute before beneficiary is entitled to call on the letter of credit would convert it into a mere
guarantee.
In this case, the Court ruled that ANZ and SBC banks were left with little or no alternative but to honor the credit and
that it was “ministerial for them to honor the call for payment. Also, Luzon’s right to call on the securities was rooted
on the following provisions of the contract:
… provide security to the Employer in the form of 2 irrevocable and confirmed standby letters of credit …
… if the contractor fails to comply, the contractor shall pay the Employer by way of liquidated damages …
… Employer may deduct the amount of such damages by drawing on the security …
Fraud is an exception to the independence principle and the remedy for fraudulent abuse is injunction. However,
injunction should not be granted unless: (a) there is a clear proof of fraud; (b) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse of
the independent purpose of the letter of credit and not only fraud under the main agreement; and (c) irreparable injury
might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously damaged.
In this case, Transfield failed to show that it has a clear and unmistakable right to restrain Luzon’s call on the securities.
The contract was plain and unequivocal in that it conferred upon Luzon the right to draw upon the securities in case of
default. Also, nothing in the contract would indicate that all disputes regarding delay should first be settled through
arbitration before Luzon would be allowed to call upon the securities.
Notes:
Letter of Credit is:
o Not strictly contractual because privity and meeting of the minds are lacking.
o Not a contract of suretyship or guaranty because it entails a primary liability following a default.
o Not a negotiable instrument because it is not payable to order or bearer, and is generally conditional.
o A written instrument whereby the writer requests or authorizes the addressee to pay money or deliver goods
to a third person and assumes responsibility for payment of debt therefor to the addressee.
Commercial credits Standby Credits
Involve payment of money under a contract of sale
Becomes payable upon presentation by the seller- Payable upon certification of a party’s nonperformance of
beneficiary of the documents that show he has taken the agreement;
affirmative steps to comply with the sales agreement. Documents that accompany the beneficiary’s draft tend to
show that the applicant has not performed.
Beneficiary of commercial credit must demonstrate by Beneficiary of the standby credit must certify that his
documents that he has performed his contract. obligor has not performed the contract.
In a standby type of letter of credit, the credit is payable upon certification of a party’s nonperformance of the agreement.
The independence principle assures the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract
and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not.
o Bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal
effect of any documents, or for the generals and/or particular conditions stipulates in the documents.
Independent nature maybe:
o Independence in toto – credit is independent from the underlying agreement (e.g. standby letter of credit).
o Independence as to the justification aspect only – e.g in a commercial letter of credit or repayment standby,
which is identical with the same obligations under the underlying agreement.