Pcib Vs CA (481 Scra 127)

3/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 481
*
G.R. No. 121989. January 31, 2006.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK,

petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ATLAS CONSOLIDATED
MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
Appeals; Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and
conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, unless
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial
court.—Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive
and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court. A deviation from this rule,
however, is justified where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
contradict those of the trial court. In the case at bar, the contradictory
findings of the courts below necessitate our review of the factual issues.
Obligations and Contracts; Joint Obligation; Words and Phrases; Joint
obligation is defined as an obligation where there is a concurrence of
several creditors, or of several debtors, or of several creditors and debtors,
by virtue of which each of the creditors has the right to demand, and each of
debtors is bound to render, compliance with his proportionate part of the
prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation.—This case
concerns a joint obligation, which is defined as an obligation where there is a
concurrence of several creditors, or of several debtors, or of several creditors
and debtors, by virtue of which each of the creditors has a right to demand,
and each of the debtors is bound to render, compliance with his proportionate
part of the prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation. Article
1208 of the Civil Code mandates the equal sharing of creditors in the
payment of debt in the absence of any law or stipulation to the contrary.
Same; Same; Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor
what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the
will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been
beneficial to the debtor.—Article 1236 of the Civil
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
128
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ad2e7837e77073f28003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Code applies in this instance. It provides that whoever pays for another may
demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the
knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as
the payment has been beneficial to the debtor. PCIB is the debtor in this
case, it having purchased along with MBC legally garnished properties,
while Atlas is the third person who paid the obligation of the debtor without
the latter’s knowledge and consent. Since Atlas readily paid NAMAWU
without the knowledge and consent of PCIB, Atlas may only recover from
PCIB or, more precisely charge to PCIB, only the amount of payment which
has benefited the latter.
Same; Same; Where the defenses that could have been set up by the
debtor against the creditor were existing and perfected, a payment by a third
person without the knowledge of the debtor cannot obligate the debtor to
such third person to an amount more than what he could been compelled by
the creditor to pay.—Generally, the third person who paid another’s debt is
entitled to recover the full amount he had paid. The law, however, limits his
recovery to the amount by which the debtor has been benefited, if the debtor
has no knowledge of, or has expressed his opposition to such payment.
Where the defenses that could have been set up by the debtor against the
creditor were existing and perfected, a payment by a third person without the
knowledge of the debtor cannot obligate the debtor to such third person to an
amount more than what he could have been compelled by the creditor to pay.
Thus, if the debt has been remitted, paid, compensated or prescribed, a
payment by a third person would constitute a payment of what is not due; his
remedy would be against the person who received the payment under such
conditions, and not against the debtor who did not benefit from the payment.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for private

respondent.
129
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 129
TINGA, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Philippine

1
Commercial
International Bank (PCIB) impugns the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 21 June 1995 finding it liable to Atlas Consolidated

Mining and 2
Development Corporation (Atlas), as well as the
Resolution dated 3
12 September 1995 denying its Motion for
Reconsideration.
The antecedents follow.
PCIB and, Manila Banking Corporation (MBC) were joint
bidders in a foreclosure sale held on 20 December 1975 of assorted
mining machinery and equipment previously mortgaged to them by
the Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. (PIM).
Four (4) years later, Atlas agreed to purchase some of these
properties owned jointly at that time by PCIB and MBC. The sale
was evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated 8 February 1979, with the
parties agreeing therein to an initial downpayment of
P12,000,000.00 and the balance of P18,000,000.00 payable in six
(6) monthly installments. It was also stipulated that the total
purchase price would be finally adjusted to exclude items to be
retained by the Bureau of Mines. The contract contained provisions
expressly warranting the following: (1) full and sufficient title to the
properties, (2) freeing the properties from all liens and
encumbrances, (3) freeing Atlas from all claims and incidental
actions of the National Mines and Allied Workers Union
(NAMAWU), and (4) full rights and capacity of the seller to convey4
title to and effect peaceful delivery of the properties to Atlas.
The NAMAWU claim stemmed from a labor dispute docketed as
RBVI332275 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), where it obtained a favorable judgment
_______________
1 CA Rollo, pp. 179183.
2 Id., at p. 212.
3 Id., at pp. 184190.
4 RTC records, p. 8.
130
against PIM in the amount

5
of P4,298,307.77. This award was
affirmed by the Court. After the judgment became final and
executory, a writ of execution was duly issued.
In compliance with the contract, on 12 February 1979, Atlas
issued Hongkong and Shanghai Bank Check No. 003842 in the
amount of P12,000,000.00 as downpayment, payable to both PCIB
and MBC. 6
In a letteragreement dated 7 March 1979 between PCIB and
MBC bearing the conformity of Atlas that was made a supplement
to the Deed of Sale, the final purchase price was adjusted to
P29,630,000.00.
On the following day, PCIB and MBC wrote Atlas requesting
that subsequent installment payments of the balance be made in the
following proportions: PCIB—63.1579% and 7
MBC—36.8421%.
The request was expressed through a letter signed by Ruben G.
Asedillo and Porfirio Q. Cabalu, Jr., Vice Presidents respectively of
MBC and PCIB.
On 18 April 1979, Atlas paid to NAMAWU the amount of
P4,298,307.77. This payment was made in compliance with the writ
of garnishment issued on the same date against Atlas to satisfy the
final judgment in favor of NAMAWU and against PIM.
PCIB and MBC filed on 23 April 1979 a petition for certiorari
with this Court, seeking to annul and set aside the order of
garnishment and to enjoin Atlas from complying with it. The Court,
in G.R. No. L50402, dismissed the petition and sustained Atlas’s
rights as follows:
. . . Atlas had the right to receive the properties free from any lien and
encumbrance, and when the garnishment was served on it, it
_______________
5 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank and The Manila Banking Corporation v.
National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF), 201 Phil. 441; 115 SCRA 873
(1982).
6 RTC records, pp. 1114.
7 Id., at p. 17.
131
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 131
was perfectly in the right in slashing the P4,298,307.77 from the P30M it
had to pay petitioners (PCIB, MBC) in order to satisfy the long existing and
vested right of the laborers of financially moribund
8
PIM, without any
liability to petitioners for reimbursement thereof.”
In the meantime, Atlas had made six (6) monthly payments in 1979
totaling P13,696,692.22, of which P8,650,543.18 or 63.1579% was
received by PCIB.
According to Atlas, apart from the downpayment of
P12,000,000.00 and installment payments of P13,696,692.22, it
should be credited with its payment of P4,298,307.77 to NAMAWU
as a consequence of the garnishment with which the latter had
secured together with corresponding P5,000.00 sheriff’s fee. Thus,
Atlas claims to have paid a total of P30,000,000.00, of which
P370,000.00 was an overpayment. Following the payment
allocations between PCIB and MBI, Atlas claimed that PCIB should
reimburse it to the tune of P233,684.23. When PCIB refused to pay,
Atlas sued PCIB to obtain reimbursement of the alleged
overpayment.
On the other hand, PCIB contended that Atlas still owed it a total
of P908,398.75. It also alleged that even before the writ of
garnishment was served on Atlas, the judgment in favor of
NAMAWU had already been partially satisfied in the amount of
P601,260.00. On account of this earlier payment, PCIB argued that
the total payments NAMAWU had received exceeded what it was
entitled to by reason of the final judgment and, therefore, Atlas
could not credit the full amount received by NAMAWU in
satisfaction of the Atlas obligation to PCIB.
9
The trial court, in a Decision dated 29 November 1990, upheld
PCIB’s position and ordered Atlas to pay P908,398.75, plus interest
at the legal
10
rate from the time of demand until payment of said
amount. It ruled:
_______________
8 Supra note 5 at p. 451.
9 CA Rollo, pp. 7479.
10 Id., at pp. 7677.
132
After a thorough analysis and evaluation of the evidence thus far adduced
and remaining unrebutted, the Court is convinced that defendant only
received the amount of P6,819,766.10, as its share out of the P12,000,000.00
downpayment, provided in the Deed of Sale, not P7,578,948.00 as claimed
by plaintiff. The Court is furthermore convinced that plaintiff erroneously
paid the amount of P4,298,307.77 to NAMAWU which payment was made
pursuant to the writ of garnishment in NLRC Case No. RBVI332275.
Before the service of the writ of garnishment on April 18, 1979, the
judgment in NLRC Case had already been satisfied in the amount of
P601,260.00 on account of several execution sales held on February 28, 1976
and October 20, 1976 and the remaining balance thereto at the time of the
service of the writ of garnishment on plaintiff was only P3,697,[047].77.
Certainly, this is the only amount which can be credited to plaintiff by
defendant because 63.1579% of P3,697,047.77 is P2,334,977.74, according
to letterrequest of defendant PCIB and MBC to plaintiff dated March 8,
1979. Instead of paying NAMAWU the amount of P3,697,047.77 which is
the correct amount, plaintiff paid the amount of P4,298,307.77.”
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court by ordering PCIB to
pay Atlas the sum of P233,654.23, plus interest at the legal rate from
the date of the first demand on 3 September 1984, until fully paid, as
well as the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The appellate court disposed of the case as follows:
“A careful examination of the evidences presented in the case, though,
evidently show that appellee PCIB has no cause to blame appellant Atlas for
its failure to receive what it maintains was a shortchange in the share of P12
Million downpayment. It must be emphasized that at the time the
downpayment check was paid, the Deed of Sale did not mention any
proportionate sharing of the proceeds thereof between PCIB and MBC
implying a 5050 sharing between the two (2) sellers. The 63.1579% for
PCIB and 36.8421% was only made known and relayed to Atlas in a letter
dated March 8, 1979 after the downpayment check of P12 Million had
already been paid on February 12, 1979. Furthermore, the initial check was
paid and received by Porfirio O. Cabalu, Jr., VicePresident of defendant
appellee PCIB. Apparently, after the check was deposited in the
133
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 133
account of MBC, the latter issued its MBC Check No. 1652661 in the
amount of P6,819,766.10 to PCIB, properly receipted under Official Receipt
No. 466652 of PCIB. In other words, what the appellee herein receipted was
the share given to it by Manilabank. Whether the same was short of what is
legally entitled becomes an internal matter between MBC and PCIB, with
Atlas having nothing to do with it. Legally, Atlas had effectively paid the
P12 Million downpayment to both PCIB and MBC.
As regard the second item, the propriety of the P4,298,307.77 paid by
Atlas to NAMAWU and incidental amount of P5,000.00 to the Sheriff by
virtue of the Notice of Garnishment in the labor dispute NLRC Case No.
RBVI33175, had already been judicially settled in the case of “PCIB and
MBC versus NAMAWUMIF, L50402, August 1982, 115 SCRA 873.” Said
case is a Petition for Certiorari praying, interalia that the High Court orders
[sic] the NLRC to stop delivery of the check of P4,298,307.77 (same check
in this case) of private respondent Atlas and/or to stop payment to NA
MAWU.
. . . .
Rightfully so, with the above discussion and the conceded fact that Atlas
made a P370,000.00 overpayment to PCIB and MBC, said amount should be
ordered returned. And since mathematically, 63.1579% of P370,000.00 is
P233,684.23, appellee PCIB should be ordered to pay back Atlas said
amount with interest at the legal rate, being a forbearance of money, from the
first demand until fully paid. Reasonable attorney’s [fees] of P20,000.00 is
likewise award[ed] to appellant Atlas for having been forced to litigate after
its several prior lawful demands to collect from PCIB the overpayment, were
11
obstinately and unjustly refused.” (Emphasis not ours.)
PCIB moved for a reconsideration of the decision but the same was
denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 12 September
1995.
PCIB is now before us. The instant petition is anchored on two
grounds, namely: (1) the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial
court by disturbing the latter’s factual findings and conclusions
despite the absence of strong and cogent
_______________
11 CA Rollo, pp. 182183.
134
reasons: and (2) the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Atlas had
12
complied with its obligation to PCIB.
Prefatorily, findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and 13
conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court. A
deviation from this rule, however, is justified where the findings of 14
fact of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court. In
the case at bar, the contradictory findings of the courts below
necessitate our review of the factual issues.
The controversy boils down into whether Atlas overpaid or
underpaid PCIB. To resolve the conflicting claims, we must dispose
of two issues: whether PCIB should settle for only P6,819,766.10
which it received out of the P12,000,000.00 downpayment or it is
entitled to more than that, specifically 63.1579% of the
downpayment; and whether Atlas should be fully credited for the
amount of P4,298,307.77 it had paid to NAMAWU.
Let us briefly recall the pertinent antecedents to appreciate the
issues in a better light. There is no dispute that the total purchase
price of the properties bought by Atlas was P29,630,000.00. Of this
amount, PCIB claims that it is enti
_______________
12 Rollo, p. 14.
13 Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No.
149052, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 178 citing Ma. Consolacion Lazaro v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 122275, 14 December 2001, 372 SCRA 308; Spouses Paragas
v. Heirs of Balacano, G.R. No. 168220, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 717 citing Blanco
v. Quasha, G.R. No. 133148, 17 November 1999, 318 SCRA 373 and Philippine
Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120262, 17 July 1997, 275 SCRA 621.
14 Resuena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128338, 28 March 2005, 454 SCRA 42,
citing Gloria Changco v. Court of Appeals, et al., 429 Phil. 226; 379 SCRA 590
(2002); Yason v. Arciaga, G.R. No. 145017, 28 January 2005, 449 SCRA 458 citing Go
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112550, 5 February 2001, 351 SCRA 145 citing Reyes vs.
Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 651 (1996).
135
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 135
tled to receive from Atlas the total of P18,713,685.77 or 63.1579%
of the purchase price, pursuant to the letter dated 7 March 1979 of
the P12,000,000.00 down payment made by Atlas to PCIB and
MBC, and PCIB acknowledged that it had received P6,819,766.10.
PCIB also admitted having received P8,650,543.18 as its share from
the subsequent installment payments made by Atlas.
On the first issue, the Court of Appeals rejected PCIB’s claim
that it should received 63.1579% of the downpayment. It ruled in
essence that PCIB cannot demand from Atlas more than what it got
from MBC out of the downpayment remitted by Atlas to both PCIB
and MBC.
We uphold the appellate court on this issue.
This case concerns a joint obligation, which is defined as an
obligation where there is a concurrence of several creditors, or of
several debtors, or of several creditors and debtors, by virtue of
which each of the creditors has a right to demand, and each of the
debtors is bound to render, compliance with his proportionate part of15
the prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation.
16
Article
1208 of the Civil Code mandates the equal sharing of creditors in
the payment of debt in the absence of any law or stipulation to the
contrary.
PCIB is adamant in claiming that it only received P6,819,766.10
as its share in the downpayment.
17
To prove its allegation, PCIB
presented its own receipt wherein it was
_______________
15 D. Jurado, Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts 171 (10th
revised ed., 1993).
16 Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature of the wording of the obligations to which
the preceding articles refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be
presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors, the
credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of
Court governing the multiplicity of suits.
17 RTC Records, p. 133.
136
clearly stated that PCIB received from Atlas the amount of

P6,819,766.10.
It is beyond dispute that Atlas issued Hongkong Shanghai Bank
Check No. 003842 in the sum of P12,000,000.00 with PCIB and
MBC as joint payees as downpayment of the purchase price on 12
February 1979. The check was received by Porfirio Cabalu, Jr., a
PCIB VicePresident. As admitted by the parties during 18
trial, the
check was afterwards deposited in the account of MBC. Therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that the amount received by PCIB, as
evidenced by the receipt, was given to it by MBC. The appellate
court arrived at the same conclusion, to wit:
“Apparently, after the check was deposited in the account of MBC, the latter
issued its MBC Check No. 1652661 in the amount of P6,819,766.10 to
PCIB, properly receipted under Official Receipt No. 466652 of PCIB. In
other words, what the appellee herein receipted was the share given to it by
Manilabank.”
Undeniably, there was yet no agreement as of that date concerning

the corresponding share of each creditor. It was only on 8 March
1979 when PCIB communicated to Atlas the percentage of
payments to be remitted to PCIB and MBC. Before said date, Atlas
could be secure in the thought that the matter of sharing was best left
to the creditors to decide.
Thus, we agree with the appellate court’s conclusion that
whatever deficiency PCIB is entitled from the P12,000,000.00 down 19
payment had become an internal matter between it and MBC. The
obligation was deemed fulfilled to the extent of P12,000,000.00 on
the part of Atlas when the check was received by a representative of
PCIB and eventually deposited in the account of MBC.
_______________
18 TSN, 20 September 1988, pp. 23.
19 CA Rollo, p. 183.
137
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 137
On the second issue, PCIB posits that Atlas cannot be credited with
the payment of the full amount of P4,298,307.77 because the
remaining outstanding balance with respect to the NAMAWU
judgment claim at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment
on Atlas was only P3,697,047.77. Atlas, on the other hand, insists
that the creditable payment to NAMAWU was P4,298,307.77, as
upheld by the Supreme Court in NAMAWU v. PCIB. Accordingly, it
is this amount which should be the basis in extracting the 63.1579%
share of PCIB, which amounts to P2,714,720.92 20
and not
P2,334,977.74 as erroneously asserted by PCIB.
The appellate court upheld the position of Atlas on the second
issue. We reverse the appellate court.
While the original amount sought to be garnished was
P4,298,307.77, the partial payment of P601,260.00 naturally
reduced it to P3,697,047.77. Clearly, Atlas overpaid NAMAWU. It
will be recalled that upon receipt of the writ of garnishment, Atlas
immediately paid NAMAWU, without making any investigation or
consultation with PCIB.
Article 1236 of the Civil Code applies in this instance. It
provides that whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor
what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or
against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the
payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
PCIB is the debtor in this case, it having purchased along with
MBC legally garnished properties, while Atlas is the third person
who paid the obligation of the debtor without the latter’s knowledge
and consent. Since Atlas readily paid NAMAWU without the
knowledge and consent of PCIB, Atlas may only recover from PCIB
or, more precisely charge to PCIB, only the amount of payment
which has benefited the latter.
_______________
20 Rollo, pp. 9091.
138
Generally, the third person who paid another’s debt is entitled to
recover the full amount he had paid. The law, however, limits his
recovery to the amount by which the debtor has been benefited, if
the debtor has no knowledge of, or has expressed his opposition to
such payment. Where the defenses that could have been set up by
the debtor against the creditor were existing and perfected, a
payment by a third person without the knowledge of the debtor
cannot obligate the debtor to such third person to an amount more
than what he could have been compelled by the creditor to pay.
Thus, if the debt has been remitted, paid, compensated or prescribed,
a payment by a third person would constitute a payment of what is
not due; his remedy would be against the person who received the
payment under such conditions, and not against the debtor who did
21
not benefit from the payment.
The trial court correctly ruled that the overpayment amounting to
P601,260.00 should be recovered from NAMAWU. The remedy of
Atlas in this case would be to proceed, not against PCIB, but against
NAMAWU who was paid in excess, applying the principle 22 that no
person can unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.
Having established that there has been partial satisfaction of the
judgment in the amount of P601,260.00, the remaining obligation of
PCIB in the judgment account stood at P2,334,977.74.
Consequently, this is the only amount which must be credited to
Atlas.
As it stands, the total payments by Atlas amounted to only
P29,398,739.99. Therefore, Atlas must settle P231,260.00, the
balance of the purchase price, of which PCIB is entitled to receive
P146,058.96 as its proportionate share.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is
GRANTED in PART. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
_______________
21 A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vol. IV 280281 (1991).
22 Civil Code, Art. 2154.
139
VOL. 481, JANUARY 31, 2006 139
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof Atlas is

ORDERED to pay PCIB the sum of P146,058.96, with legal interest
commencing from the time of first demand on 22 August 1985.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio and CarpioMorales,

JJ., concur.
Petition granted in part, judgment reversed and set aside.
Notes.—When the security agency fails to pay its guards, the
corporation serviced, as principal, becomes jointly and severally
liable for the guards’ wages. However, the solidary liability of a
corporation with that of the security agency does not preclude the
application of the Civil Code provision on the right of
reimbursement from his codebtor by the one who paid. (Mariveles
Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 415 SCRA 573 [2003])
The neglect of the creditor to sue the principal at the time the
debt falls due does not discharge the surety, even if such delay
continues until the principal becomes insolvent. (Filipinas Textile
Mills, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 415 SCRA 635 [2003])
——o0o——
140
Ingles vs. Cantos
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pcib Vs CA (481 Scra 127)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib Vs CA (481 Scra 127)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 481

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK,

Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for private

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Philippine

Appeals dated 21 June 1995 finding it liable to Atlas Consolidated

against PIM in the amount

clearly stated that PCIB received from Atlas the amount of

Undeniably, there was yet no agreement as of that date concerning

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof Atlas is

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio and CarpioMorales,

You might also like

Pcib Vs CA (481 Scra 127)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib Vs CA (481 Scra 127)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 481

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK,

Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for private

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Philippine

Appeals dated 21 June 1995 finding it liable to Atlas Consolidated

against PIM in the amount

clearly stated that PCIB received from Atlas the amount of

Undeniably, there was yet no agreement as of that date concerning

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof Atlas is

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio and Carpio­Morales,

You might also like

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio and CarpioMorales,