Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 178610 November 17, 2010
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI ANKING CORP., !TD. STA"" RETIREMENT P!AN, Re#$reme%#
Tr&'# "&%(, I%).* Petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES IEN+ENIDO AND EDITHA RO,UE-A, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
.R. No. !"#$!% is a petition for revie&
!
assailin' the Decision
(
pro)ul'ated on *% March (%%$ b+ the
Court of ,ppeals -C,. in C,/.R. SP No. $($#0. 1he appellate court 'ranted the petition filed b+ 2e
eron' -eron'. and Spouses 3ienvenido and Editha 3ro4ue5a -spouses 3ro4ue5a. and dis)issed the
consolidated co)plaints filed b+ 6on'7on' and Shan'hai 3an7in' Corporation, 8td. / Staff Retire)ent
Plan -6S3C8/SRP. for recover+ of su) of )one+. 1he appellate court reversed and set aside the
Decision
*
of 3ranch !*9 of the Re'ional 1rial Court of Ma7ati Cit+ -R1C. in Civil Case No. %%/"#" dated
!! Dece)ber (%%%, as &ell as its Order
:
dated 0 Septe)ber (%%%. 1he R1C;s decision affir)ed the
Decision
0
dated (# Dece)ber !999 of 3ranch $! of the Metropolitan 1rial Court -Me1C. of Ma7ati Cit+ in
Civil Case No. 0(:%% for Recover+ of a Su) of Mone+.
T.e "/)#'
1he appellate court narrated the facts as follo&s<
Petitioners eron' and =Editha> 3ro4ue5a -defendants belo&. are e)plo+ees of 6on'7on' and Shan'hai
3an7in' Corporation -6S3C.. 1he+ are also )e)bers of respondent 6on'7on' Shan'hai 3an7in'
Corporation, 8td. Staff Retire)ent Plan -6S3C8/SRP, plaintiff belo&.. 1he 6S3C8/SRP is a retire)ent
plan established b+ 6S3C throu'h its 3oard of 1rustees for the benefit of the e)plo+ees.
On October !, !99%, petitioner =Editha> 3ro4ue5a obtained a car loan in the a)ount of Php!"0,%%%.%%.
On Dece)ber !(, !99!, she a'ain applied and &as 'ranted an appliance loan in the a)ount of
Php(:,%%%.%%. On the other hand, petitioner eron' applied and &as 'ranted an e)er'enc+ loan in the
a)ount of Php*0,"#%.%% on ?une (, !99*. 1hese loans are paid throu'h auto)atic salar+ deduction.
Mean&hile =in !99*>, a labor dispute arose bet&een 6S3C and its e)plo+ees. Ma@orit+ of 6S3C;s
e)plo+ees &ere ter)inated, a)on' &ho) are petitioners Editha 3ro4ue5a and 2e eron'. 1he
e)plo+ees then filed an ille'al dis)issal case before the National 8abor Relations Co))ission -N8RC.
a'ainst 6S3C. 1he le'alit+ or ille'alit+ of such ter)ination is no& pendin' before this appellate Court in
C, .R. CV No. 0$"9", entitled Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union, et al. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, et al.
3ecause of their dis)issal, petitioners &ere not able to pa+ the )onthl+ a)orti5ations of their respective
loans. 1hus, respondent 6S3C8/SRP considered the accounts of petitioners delin4uent. De)ands to pa+
the respective obli'ations &ere )ade upon petitioners, but the+ failed to pa+.
$
6S3C8/SRP, actin' throu'h its 3oard of 1rustees and represented b+ ,le@andro 8. Custodio, filed Civil
Case No. 0(:%% a'ainst the spouses 3ro4ue5a on *! ?ul+ !99$. On !9 Septe)ber !99$, 6S3C8/SRP
filed Civil Case No. 0(9!! a'ainst eron'. 3oth suits &ere civil actions for recover+ and collection of
su)s of )one+.
T.e Me#ro0o1$#/% Tr$/1 Co&r#2' R&1$%3
On (# Dece)ber !999, the Me1C pro)ul'ated its Decision
"
in favor of 6S3C8/SRP. 1he Me1C ruled
that the nature of 6S3C8/SRP;s de)ands for pa+)ent is civil and has no connection to the on'oin' labor
dispute. eron' and Editha 3ro4ue5a;s ter)ination fro) e)plo+)ent resulted in the loss of continued
benefits under their retire)ent plans. 1hus, the loans secured b+ their future retire)ent benefits to &hich
the+ are no lon'er entitled are reduced to unsecured and pure civil obli'ations. ,s unsecured and pure
obli'ations, the loans are i))ediatel+ de)andable.
1he dispositive portion of the Me1C;s decision reads<
A6ERE2ORE, pre)ises considered and in vie& of the fore'oin', the Court finds that the plaintiff &as
able to prove b+ a preponderance of evidence the eBistence and i))ediate de)andabilit+ of the
defendants; loan obli'ations as @ud')ent is hereb+ rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a'ainst the
defendants in both cases, orderin' the latter<
!. In Civil Case No. 0(:%%, to pa+ the a)ount of Php!!$,":%.%% at siB percent interest per annu)
fro) the ti)e of de)and and in Civil Case No. 0(9!!, to pa+ the a)ount of Php(0,*::.!( at siB
percent per annu) fro) the ti)e of the filin' of these cases, until the a)ount is full+ paidC
(. 1o pa+ the a)ount of Php(%,%%%.%% each as reasonable attorne+;s feesC
*. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
#
eron' and the spouses 3ro4ue5a filed a @oint appeal of the Me1C;s decision before the R1C. eron';s
case &as doc7eted Civil Case No. %%/"#$, &hile the spouses 3ro4ue5a;s case &as doc7eted as Civil
Case No. %%/"#".
T.e Re3$o%/1 Tr$/1 Co&r#2' R&1$%3
1he R1C initiall+ denied the @oint appeal because of the belated filin' of eron' and the spouses
3ro4ue5a;s )e)orandu). 1he R1C later reconsidered the order of denial and resolved the issues in the
interest of @ustice.
On !! Dece)ber (%%%, the R1C affir)ed the Me1C;s decision in toto.
9
1he R1C ruled that eron' and Editha 3ro4ue5a;s ter)ination fro) e)plo+)ent dis4ualified the) fro)
availin' of benefits under their retire)ent plans. ,s a conse4uence, there is no lon'er an+ securit+ for the
loans. 6S3C8/SRP has a le'al ri'ht to de)and i))ediate settle)ent of the unpaid balance because of
eron' and Editha 3ro4ue5a;s continued default in pa+)ent and their failure to provide ne& securit+ for
their loans. Moreover, the absence of a period &ithin &hich to pa+ the loan allo&s 6S3C8/SRP to
de)and i))ediate pa+)ent. 1he loan obli'ations are considered pure obli'ations, the fulfill)ent of &hich
are de)andable at once.
eron' and the spouses 3ro4ue5a then filed a Petition for Revie& under Rule :( before the C,.
T.e R&1$%3 o4 #.e Co&r# o4 A00e/1'
On *% March (%%$, the C, rendered its Decision
!%
&hich reversed the !! Dece)ber (%%% Decision of the
R1C. 1he C, ruled that the 6S3C8/SRP;s co)plaints for recover+ of su) of )one+ a'ainst eron' and
the spouses 3ro4ue5a are pre)ature as the loan obli'ations have not +et )atured. 1hus, no cause of
action accrued in favor of 6S3C8/SRP. 1he dispositive portion of the appellate court;s Decision reads as
follo&s<
A6ERE2ORE, the assailed Decision of the R1C is REVERSED and SE1 ,SIDE. , ne& one is hereb+
rendered DISMISSIN the consolidated co)plaints for recover+ of su) of )one+.
SO ORDERED.
!!
6S3C8/SRP filed a )otion for reconsideration &hich the C, denied for lac7 of )erit in its
Resolution
!(
pro)ul'ated on !9 ?une (%%".
On $ ,u'ust (%%", 6S3C8/SRP filed a )anifestation &ithdra&in' the petition a'ainst eron' because
she alread+ settled her obli'ations. In a Resolution
!*
of this Court dated !% Septe)ber (%%", this Court
treated the )anifestation as a )otion to &ithdra& the petition a'ainst eron', 'ranted the )otion, and
considered the case a'ainst eron' closed and ter)inated.
I''&e'
6S3C8/SRP enu)erated the follo&in' 'rounds to support its Petition<
I. 1he Court of ,ppeals has decided a 4uestion of substance in a &a+ not in accord &ith la& and
applicable decisions of this 6onorable CourtC and
II. 1he Court of ,ppeals has departed fro) the accepted and usual course of @udicial proceedin's
in reversin' the decision of the Re'ional 1rial Court and the Metropolitan 1rial Court.
!:
T.e Co&r#2' R&1$%3
1he petition is )eritorious. Ae a'ree &ith the rulin's of the Me1C and the R1C.
1he Pro)issor+ Notes unifor)l+ provide<
PROMISSORD NO1E
PEEEEE Ma7ati, M.M. EEEE !9EE
2OR V,8FE RECEIVED, IGAE EEEEE @ointl+ and severall+ pro)ise to pa+ to 16E 6S3C RE1IREMEN1
P8,N -hereinafter called the HP8,NH. at its office in the Municipalit+ of Ma7ati, Metro Manila, on or
before until full+ paid the su) of PESOS EEE -PEEE. Philippine Currenc+ &ithout discount, &ith interest
fro) date hereof at the rate of SiB per cent -$I. per annu), pa+able )onthl+.
IGAE a'ree that the P8,N )a+, upon &ritten notice, increase the interest rate stipulated in this note at
an+ ti)e dependin' on prevailin' conditions.
IGAE hereb+ eBpressl+ consent to an+ eBtensions or rene&als hereof for a portion or &hole of the
principal &ithout notice to the other-s., and in such a case our liabilit+ shall re)ain @oint and
several.1avvphi1
In case collection is )ade b+ or throu'h an attorne+, IGAE @ointl+ and severall+ a'ree to pa+ ten percent
-!%I. of the a)ount due on this note -but in no case less than P(%%.%%. as and for attorne+;s fees in
addition to eBpenses and costs of suit.
In case of @udicial eBecution, IGAE hereb+ @ointl+ and severall+ &aive our ri'hts under the provisions of
Rule *9, Section !( of the Rules of Court.
!0
In rulin' for 6S3C8/SRP, &e appl+ the first para'raph of ,rticle !!"9 of the Civil Code<
,rt. !!"9. Ever+ obli'ation &hose perfor)ance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or
upon a past event un7no&n to the parties, is (em/%(/b1e /# o%)e.
B B B. -E)phasis supplied..
Ae affir) the findin's of the Me1C and the R1C that there is no date of pa+)ent indicated in the
Pro)issor+ Notes. 1he R1C is correct in rulin' that since the Pro)issor+ Notes do not contain a period,
6S3C8/SRP has the ri'ht to de)and i))ediate pa+)ent. ,rticle !!"9 of the Civil Code applies. 1he
spouses 3ro4ue5a;s obli'ation to pa+ 6S3C8/SRP is a pure obli'ation. 1he fact that 6S3C8/SRP &as
content &ith the prior )onthl+ chec7/off fro) Editha 3ro4ue5a;s salar+ is of no )o)ent. Once Editha
3ro4ue5a defaulted in her )onthl+ pa+)ent, 6S3C8/SRP )ade a de)and to enforce a pure obli'ation.
In their ,ns&er, the spouses 3ro4ue5a ad)itted that prior to Editha 3ro4ue5a;s dis)issal fro) 6S3C in
Dece)ber !99*, she Hreli'iousl+ paid the loan a)orti5ations, &hich 6S3C collected throu'h pa+roll
chec7/off.H
!$
, definite a)ount is paid to 6S3C8/SRP on a specific date. Editha 3ro4ue5a authori5ed
6S3C8/SRP to )a7e deductions fro) her pa+roll until her loans are full+ paid. Editha 3ro4ue5a,
ho&ever, defaulted in her )onthl+ loan pa+)ent due to her dis)issal. Despite the spouses 3ro4ue5a;s
protestations, the pa+roll deduction is )erel+ a convenient )ode of pa+)ent and not the sole source of
pa+)ent for the loans. 6S3C8/SRP never a'reed that the loans &ill be paid onl+ throu'h salar+
deductions. Neither did 6S3C8/SRP a'ree that if Editha 3ro4ue5a ceases to be an e)plo+ee of 6S3C,
her obli'ation to pa+ the loans &ill be suspended. 6S3C8/SRP can i))ediatel+ de)and pa+)ent of the
loans at an+ti)e because the obli'ation to pa+ has no period. Moreover, the spouses 3ro4ue5a have
alread+ incurred in default in pa+in' the )onthl+ install)ents.
2inall+, the enforce)ent of a loan a'ree)ent involves Hdebtor/creditor relations founded on contract and
does not in an+ &a+ concern e)plo+ee relations. ,s such it should be enforced throu'h a separate civil
action in the re'ular courts and not before the 8abor ,rbiter.H
!"
5HERE"ORE, &e GRANT the petition. 1he Decision of the Court of ,ppeals in C,/.R. SP No. $($#0
pro)ul'ated on *% March (%%$ is RE+ERSED and SET ASIDE. 1he decision of 3ranch !*9 of the
Re'ional 1rial Court of Ma7ati Cit+ in Civil Case No. %%/"#", as &ell as the decision of 3ranch $! of the
Metropolitan 1rial Court of Ma7ati Cit+ in Civil Case No. 0(:%% a'ainst the spouses 3ienvenido and
Editha 3ro4ue5a, are A""IRMED. Costs a'ainst respondents.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPI