Case Number: 161

Title of the Case: Heirs of Spouses Victor Libunao and Rosario Angeles de Libunao,
rep. by Paterno Libunao vs. Unimark Investment (SPV-AMC) Corporation, PBCom,
Bonifacio Vistan and The Register of Deeds of Bulacan
Amount Involve: none
Court Case Number: Civil Case No. 142-M-2007
Nature of the Case: Cancellation of Title with Damages where PBCom is one of the
defendants.
Summary: Consumer Savings Bank granted loan Accomodations to defendant
Bonifacio Vistan secured by a property located at San Miguel, Bulacan and covered by
then Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-80922 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. For
failure of the defendant Bonifacio Vistan to comply with the payment terms of its loan,
Consumer Saving Bank caused the extra-judicial foreclosure sale of the property
subject of the Real Estate Mortgage which Bonifacio Vistan executed to secure his loan
obligation. Consumer Savings Bank bidded for the property during the conducted extra-
judicial foreclosure sale. A Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor and no redemption
was exercised by defendant Bonifacio Vistan or his successors-in-interest. In August
2001, Consumer Savings Bank and Philippine Bank of Communications merged with
the latter as the surviving entity. Thus, the title and ownership was consolidated in the
name of Philippine Bank of Communications. While the property was lodged under the
books of Philippine Bank of Communications as ROPA (Real and Other Properties
Acquired), the same was transferred, sold and conveyed to defendant Unimark
Investments (SPV-AMC) Corporation pursuant to the Special Purpose Asset Vehicle
Law or Republic Act No. 9182. Plaintiff now seeks to nullify the issuance of the title
issued in the name of Philippine Bank of Communications, claiming fraud in the manner
in which defendant Bonifacio Vistan acquired the property.
Status: A Hearing was conducted last May 4, 2012, where the testimony of the
plaintiffs witness was stricken off the record upon motion of PBComs Counsel. The
case was then reset to September 7, 2012 for the presentation of other witnesses for
the plaintiff. In the meantime, plaintiff is coordinating with Star Asset for a possible
purchase of the subject property. The undersigned and counsel for Star Assets
appeared during the continuation of the hearing for the presentation by the plaintiff of
other witnesses held on 6 August 2012. However, due to the failure of the plaintiffs
counsel and Mr. Paterno Libunao to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Court reset
the hearing of the case for the last time on September 7, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. with a stern
warning that the Court will dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if plaintiff or its
counsel will not appear at the said hearing. At the hearing of the captioned case held on
September 7, 2012, plaintiff and his counsel failed to appear. The counsel for Star
Assets manifested that Star Assets already accepted the offer of the plaintiff to buy-
back the property subject of the instant case. However, due to the failure of the plaintiff
to attend the hearing and considering further the stern warning issued by the Court at
the last hearing held on August 6, 2012, the Court issued an Order dismissing the entire
case.

Case Number: 55
Title of the Case: People of the Philippines vs. Marfina T. Teodoro, et. al. (Elan
Concepts Corporation)
Amount Involve: Php2,465,786.56
Court Case Number: Crim. Case No. 10-1536
I.S. No. XV-05-INV-1
Nature of the Case: Violation of P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the RPC.
Summary: ELAN CONCEPTS CORPORATION is engaged in trading of footwear,
leather and accessories under the brand name Strider. On August 8, 2003, ELAN
CONCEPTS applied for and was granted a letter of credit by the PBCom for the
importation of childrens leather shoes (herein collectively referred to as trust
properties). The letter of credit were subsequently placed and booked by PBCom under
trust receipt upon ELAN CONCEPTS request. The letter of credit and trust properties
were then delivered to ELAN CONCEPTS which then held the same in trust for PBCom
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust agreements. A letter of credit
and a trust receipt were executed by ELAN CONCEPTS authorized officer Marfina T.
Teodoro and Dotty T. Pangalangan in favor of PBCom. Under the trust receipt
agreement, ELAN CONCEPTS as entrustee, agreed to sell or otherwise dispose of the
trust property provided that the proceeds thereof are turned over to PBCom, as
entruster, for application against acceptances and any other indebtedness of ELAN
CONCEPTS with PBCom. Despite PBComs repeated demands, ELAN CONCEPTS
and/or Marfina T. Teodoro and Dotty T. Pangalangan failed to honor their commitment
to deliver the proceeds of the sale of the trust property or to return the same to the
PBCom if unsold. In view of such non-payment, ELAN CONCEPTS total outstanding
obligations with PBCom for the aforesaid trust receipt is Php2,465,785.56, exclusive of
interest and penalties. It was alleged that ELAN CONCEPTS and/or Marfina T. Teodoro
and Dotty T. Pangalangan have committed and are culpable of fraud by way of failing to
remit to PBCom the aforementioned loan amount and fraudulently converting for their
own use and benefit the proceeds of the sale and/or properties received under trust.
Status: On 17 August 2010, the Bank received a copy of Resolution from the City
Prosecution Office of Makati City, recommending that the attached Information, for one
count of violation of P.D. 115 in relation to the REVISED PENAL CODE Art. 315 (1) (b)
be approved for filing in the appropriate court. For failure to serve the warrant of arrest
for accused Marfina T. Teodoro & Dotty T. Pangalangan, the records of the case were
sent to archives, without prejudice to the revival of the case. PBCom shall conduct skip
tracing to locate the current whereabouts of the accused. Currently, the probability of
recovering the amount involved is low since no arrest has been made to date. It is
expected that the accused will be convicted, but the possibility of collecting the amount
is remote as the company is no longer operational and has no assets to attach.

(UPDATED)Case Number: 163
Title of the Case: Sagana Construction & Development Corp. vs. PBCom, Register of
Deeds of Paranaque City and the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial
Court of Paranaque City Re: Sagana Construction's Appeal;
Sagana Construction & Development Corp. vs. PBCom, Register of Deeds of
Paranaque City and the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of
Paranaque City
Amount Involved: none
Court Case Number: CA-G.R. CV No. 91816; Civil Case No. 04-0486
Nature of the Case: Declaration of Nullity of Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage, Certificate of Sale and Damages where PBCom is the defendant-Appellee
Summary: On December 22, 2004, plaintiff-appellant Sagana Construction &
Development Corporation filed an action against defendant-appellee Philippine Bank of
Communications (PBC) for declaration of nullity of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage, certificate of sale and damages before the Regional Trial Court Branch 258,
Paranaque City docketed as Civil Case No. 04-0486. Sagana alleged that the
extrajudicial foreclosure conducted by PBC was void based on the following reasons: 1.
Its principal loan with PBC was not reduced despite several payments; 2. PBC
unilaterally increased the interest rate of the loan without its consent; 3. The foreclosure
was premature because it was done without notice; and 4. The Notice of Sheriff Sale
was published in Finders Ad, a virtually unknown newspaper, hence, the publication
requirement of foreclosure proceedings was not properly complied with. In its answer
with compulsory counterclaim, PBC maintained that the foreclosure was valid because
the same was only done after efforts to restructure Saganas debt failed and when the
latter failed to pay its obligation despite demands for it to do so. By way of compulsory
counterclaim, PBC claimed moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees.
Records show that the trial court dismissed the case on October 19, 2005 and on
August 28, 2006 because of Saganas failure to appear at the preliminary conference of
the case despite due notice. However, upon Saganas motion, the trial court reinstated
the complaint and set the preliminary conference on April 25, 2007. When the hearing of
April 25, 2007 came, plaintiff-appellant asked for resetting on the ground that only its
collaborating counsel, Atty. De Guia, entered her appearance. The trial court granted
Saganas motion and reset the pretrial to June 6, 2007.During the pretrial on June 6,
2007, the trial court accorded Sagana four dates, i.e., August 1, 31, September 19 and
October 10, 2007 to present its evidence with stern warning against further
postponement without fault of the opposing party. The warning was reiterated by the
trial court in its pretrial order dated June 18, 2007. On August 1, 2007, after presenting
the testimony of its sole witness, Luis Arriola, plaintiff-appellant moved for resetting of
the hearing which was granted. On August 31, 2007, Sagana moved again for resetting
on the ground that its witness was suffering from influenza which the trial court also
granted. During the scheduled hearing on September 19, 2007, Saganas counsel,
failed to appear despite notice. Subsequently, in the November 26, 2007 hearing,
Sagana informed the trial court that it did not yet obtain a certification from the National
Library that the Finders Ad is not a duly accredited newspaper. Hence, it moved for
another resetting. This time, PBC objected to the motion for postponement and
manifested that plaintiff-appellant should be considered to have waived its right to
present further evidence pursuant to the trial courts order dated June 6, 2007. PBCom
asked leave from the trial court to file demurrer on Saganas evidence which was
granted by the court. On March 28, 2008, the assailed decision of the RTC was
rendered granting PBCs demurrer and dismissing Saganas complaint. Sagana sought
reconsideration but was denied. Thus, the present appeal to the CA.
Status: RTC-Paranaque Branch 258 dismissed the complaint by Sagana Construction
on the ground that the evidence adduced to nullify the extra-judicial foreclosure of the
properties was insufficient. The dismissal, however, was appealed to the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the lower court's ruling in a Decision promulgated on 30 May
2012. On 27 June 2012, Sagana Construction filed a Motion for Reconsideration
seeking a reversal of the Decision made by the Court of Appeals. A Comment thereto
was filed by the Bank on 10 October 2012. A Supplement to the Comment was filed to
strengthen the Bank's position. The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Sagana Construction. On 05 April 2013, the Bank received a
copy of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by
Sagana with the Supreme Court. Sagana prayed that it be granted an additional thirty
(30) days from 2 April 2013 within which to file its petition. The Supreme Court has
issued a Resolution dated July 10, 2013 which granted petitioners motion for extension
of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari counted from
the expiration of the reglementary period. However, in the same resolution, the
Supreme Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
Decision and Resolution dated May 30, 2012 and February 15, 2013, respectively, of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 91816 for late filing of the petition as it was filed
beyond the extended period pursuant to Sec. 5(a), Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for failure of the affiant in the verification of the petition and certification
on non-forum shopping to show proof of authority to sign the same for and on behalf of
petitioner corporation. On December 9, 2013 the Supreme Court once again issued a
Resolution which resolved to DENY with FINALITY the motion for reconsideration filed
by Sagana on the July 10, 2013 Resolution.

Case Number: 105
Title of the Case: PBCOM vs. Carmelita Relente
Amount Involve: Php120,000.00
Court Case Number: Civil Case No. 100019
Nature of the Case: Collection of Sum of Money where PBCom is the plaintiff
Summary: Defendant Carmelita Relente applied for a salary loan with plaintiff PBCom
sometime in July of 2008. PBCom granted Relentes loan application in the amount of
Php120,000.00. In return, Relente executed a promissory note in favor of PBCom for
the amount of Php120,000.00. Under the terms of the promissory note, Relentes loan
will be paid via 36 equally monthly installments of Php4,398.72. Relente was not able to
comply with the payment schedule agreed upon.
Status: The case is undergoing JDR. The Court is awaiting the submission by the
parties of the executed Compromise Agreement. However, despite non-submission of
the Compromise Agreement, the defendant has started paying the obligation. Payments
are up to date. RMD through MDF will write a letter to remind the defendant to sign the
Compromise Agreement and submit to RMD for submission to the Court.