BUYCO v PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK already created and acquired at the time he offered to pay his obligation
30 June 1961 | GR Nr. L-14406| Paredes, J | Prospective and Retroactive
Statutes
PETITIONERS: Marcelino Buyco
RESPONDENTS: Philippine National Bank
SUMMARY:
This is a mandamus case filed by Buyco praying that the PNB be
compelled to accept his backpay acknowledgement certificate as
payment for his obligation. On April 24, 1956, petitioner Marcelino
Buyco was indebted to PNB in the amount of P5,102.90 plus interest.
The loan of petitioner was due to his deficit on his 1952-53 crop loan
with PNB, The said loan was secured by a mortgage of real property.
Petitioner is a holder of backpay acknowledgment certificate which is
under Rep. Act No. 897 in the amount of P22,227.69 payable in thirty
(30) years. Petitioner
offered to pay the PNB using his backpay acknowledgement certificate
but PNB answered that their motion for reconsideration (Florentino case,
April 28, 1956) was still under consideration by the court such that they
cannot grant yet his request. Later on, the Court denied PNB’s motion
for reconsideration after which petitioner wrote again to PNB reiterating
his request to pay the obligation with the said certificate. A few days
after, PNB answered that they could not accept petitioner’s certificate
because of the amendment of its charter. Petitioner then requested PNB
to reconsider its decision which was referred to the Legal Department,
the said department expressed that they could not accept petitioner’s
certificate because of the amendment in its charter.
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo granted the petition and ordered the
respondent bank to give due course of the vested right of the petitioner
which was acquired previous to the enactment of R.A. No. 1576 by
accepting his backpay certificate as payment for the obligation to PNB
with costs of the proceedings against PNB. Hence, this appeal by PNB.
The findings and conclusions stated below are assigned as errors that the
trial court has committed:
1. That in a letter, PNB has impliedly admitted the right of petitioner to
apply or offer his certificate in payment of his obligation to respondent.
2. That the MR filed by PNB, did not affect the petitioner's vested right
with his certificate before the passage of Rep. Act No. 1576.
3. Rep. Act No. 1576 does not nullify the right of the petitioner to pay
his obligation with his backpay certificate.
4. That the writ of mandamus would lie against the appellant.
DOCTRINE:
ISSUES:
Whether or not the amendment in RA Nr. 1576 can apply retroactively to the
payment of the petitioner using his backpay acknowledgement certificate?
-NO
RULING:
Mandamus is the proper remedy and the judgment appealed from is
hereby affirmed with costs against the respondent-appellant.
RATIO:
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Florentino case, the PNB was
declared authorized to accept the backpay certificate as payment for the
obligation. Although it was promulgated on April 28, 1956, after petitioner
has offered to pay using his backpay certificate, it is nevertheless obvious
that on or before said April 24, 1956, the right to have his certificate applied
for the payment of his obligation with the appellant already existed by virtue
of Republic Act No. 897.
So that when the appellant in its letter of July 18, 1956, replied that "in the
meantime that our motion for reconsideration of the said decision is still
pending the resolution of the Supreme Court, we regret to advise that we
cannot yet grant your request", the said appellant already knew or should
have known that a right was vested, only that its enforcement had to wait the
resolution of this Court which it handed on February 15,1957, by maintaining
its decision.