Prince;
SEC TRANS; Page 1 of 2; no
22
HI-CEMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION vs. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA (la!" PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK an# no$% E&UITABLE-PCI BANK'% .R. No. 1)2*+) an# 1)2*1,% S!!/!" 20% 2++ E.T. HENR3 4 CO. an# SPOUSES ENRI&UE TAN an# LILIA TAN vs. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA (la!" PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK an# no$% E&UITABLE-PCI BANK'% .R. No. 1)2*1, P!55on!"s vs. R!son#!ns P!55on!"s6 Petitioners Spouses Tan, controlling stockholders of E.T. Henry, engaged in the business of processing and distributing bunker fuel. P!55on!"s an# E.T. H!n"78s 9:so!" = Hi-Ceent. Hi-Cee nt. !t issued post-dated checks to E.T. E.T. Henry. R!son#!n = "ith E.T. E.T. Henry into #re-discounting #re-discounting of checks$ in %&'&. (espondent (espondent )ank granted E.T. E.T. Henry a credit facility kno*n as #Purchase #Purchase of Short Ter Ter (ecei+ables.$ (ecei+ables.$ !n this set-up, E.T. Henry *as able to encash, *ith pre-deducted interest, the postdated checks of Hi-Ceent, anebo Cosetics, and (i+erside ills. or e+ery transaction, )/0 re1uired E.T. Henry to e2ecute a proissory note and a deed of assignent bearing the confority of the client to the re-discounting. !n addition, E.T. Henry obtained loans 3on separate dates4 fro )/0. T! a7!n o< !s! loans $as s!9:"!# /7 $o "!al !sa! o"=a=!s on E.T. H!n"7>s S:9a% Pa"a?a@:! "o!"7. ro %&'& to %&5%, E.T. Henry *as able to re-discount its clients6 checks 3*ith deeds of assignent4 *ith )/0. )ut, in ebruary %&5%, checks of Hi-Ceent 3*hich *ere crossed and *hich bore the restriction 7deposit to payee6s account only74 *ere dishonored. So *ere the checks of (i+erside and anebo. Hence, )/0 8led a coplaint for su of oney in the then C! against against E.T. E.T. Henry, Henry, the spouses spouses Tan, Tan, Hi-Ceent Hi-Ceent 3including 3including its general general anager anager and its treasur treasurer er as signator signatories ies of the postdate postdated d crosse crossed d checks4, checks4, (i+erside and anebo. )/0 )/ 0 claie claied d that, that, due to the dis dishon honor or of the check checks, s, it su9er su9ered ed actua actuall daage daages s e1ui+alent to their +alue. BANK also so:= o 9oll!9 <"o E.T. H!n"7 an# ! so: so:s! s!s s Tan o! o!"" loan loan o/l5 o/l5=a =a5 5on ons s as #!9 #!95! 5!n9 n95! 5!s s "!s: "!s:l l5n 5n= = <"o <"o ! ! H!n"7>s s "o!" "o!"7 7 5n S:9a S:9a%% Pa"a?a@:!. Hi-Ceent claied that: 3%4 its general anager and treasurer *ere not authoried to issue the postdated crossed checks in E.T. Henry4 3>4 )/ )/0 0 *as *as not not a hold holder er in due due cour course se as it shou should ld not not ha+e ha+e discounted the for being 7crossed checks.$ E.T. Henry and the spouses Tan claied that: 3%4 the dra*ers of the postdated checks failed to honor the due to the ad+erse econoic conditions pre+ailing at the tie respo espond nden entt pres presen ente ted d the the for for pay payen ent; t; (2' (2' ! ! !" !"aa-: :#5 #595 95al al sal! sal! o< ! ! o"=a=!# S:9a "o!"7 $as vo5# #:! o ="oss 5na#!@:a97 o< ! /5# "59!. E.T. H!n"7 an# so:s!s Tan 9la5!# a ! S:9a "o!"7 $as $o" P2) 5ll5on #:"5n= ! A, %&5&, the trial court court decided in fa+our fa+our of )/0. Thus, petitioners petitioners appealed to the C/ but it aBred in toto. Hence, petitioners cae to SC assailing the C/6s decision. as ! !"a-:#595al sal! o< ! o"=a=!# S:9a "o!"7 vo5# #:! o ="oss 5na#!@:a97 o< ! /5# "59! •
•
•
•
•
Prince;
SEC TRANS; Page 2 of 2; no
22
HELD NO. CA AFFIRMED $5 MODIFICATION. H5.C!!n 5s #5s9a"=!# <"o l5a/5l57. E. T. H!n"7 ORDERED o a7 BANK. 7...ere inade1uacy of the price obtained at the sDheri96s sale, unless shocking to the conscience, 3*as4 not suBcient to set aside the sale if there 3*as4 no sho*ing that, in the e+ent of a regular sale, a better price 3could4 be obtained.7 urtherore, in the absence of any irregularity in the foreclosure proceeding or proof that it *as carried out *ithout strict obser+ance of the procedure, *e *ill continue to assue its regularity and strike do*n any attept to +itiate it. !n this case, E.T. Henry and the spouses Tan ade no ention of any anoaly to support the nulli8cation of the foreclosure sale but erely alleged a disparity in the bid price and the property6s fair arket +alue.
