Banks can’t unreasonably refuse loan payments – SC
BORROWERS AWARDED P4M IN DAMAGES

Banks can’t unreasonably refuse loan payments – SC

/ 05:30 AM January 21, 2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding a man guilty of pretending to be a lawyer using the identity of a deceased attorney.

Inquirer file photo

MANILA, Philippines — Banks are not allowed to unreasonably refuse payment from borrowers who risk facing higher interest and additional charges, the Supreme Court said, as it ordered a bank to accept a check tendered by a couple as full payment for their personal loan.

In a 21-page decision on GR No. 185110, the high tribunal’s Third Division denied the petition of Premiere Development Bank and directed it to pay spouses Engracio and Lourdes Castañeda moral and exemplary damages amounting to P4 million, plus P50,000 in attorney’s fees.

Article continues after this advertisement

The spouses had taken out a P2.6-million personal loan, while two companies—Casent Realty and Development Corp. and Central Surety and Insurance Company Inc. (Central Surety), where Engracio held key positions—had corporate loans totaling P86.8 million.

FEATURED STORIES

On Sept. 20, 2000, the spouses tendered two checks: P2.6 million to fully pay their personal loan and another P6 million for Central Surety’s corporate loan.

The bank combined the payments, totaling P8.6 million, and applied them across four loans, including the spouses’ personal loans and the corporate loans.

In response, the spouses filed a case against the bank for the proper application of the P2.6-million check to their personal loan.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the bank should have applied the P2.6 million check solely to the spouses’ personal loans and not to the companies’ loans.

Article continues after this advertisement

Distinct personalities

In siding with the spouses, the high tribunal emphasized the distinct legal personalities of corporations and their officers, ruling that payments for personal loans cannot be applied to corporate debts.

It upheld that the personal loan of the spouses was separate from the corporate loans tied to Casent Realty and Central Surety.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Supreme Court, in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, cited Article 1252 of the Civil Code, which states that borrowers have the right to specify which debt their payment should apply to.

The high court ruled that the bank violated this principle by ignoring the borrowers’ intent to settle their personal loans.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

The bank’s refusal to apply the P2.6 million to the personal loan was also deemed an act of bad faith by the high tribunal, as it caused undue interest accrual and penalties.

TAGS: Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2025 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.