Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crystal Vs Bpi
Crystal Vs Bpi
A corporation is generally not allowed to receive BPI filed a complaint for sum of money against CCCC
moral damages, it being an artificial being and and spouses crystal before the RTC of Butuan seeking
could not possibly suffer pain, anguish, etc. to recover the deficiency of the loan of CCC and
However, once a corporation’s reputation has spouses with BPI Butuan.
been besmirched, moral damages may be
awarded to a corporation if such damages can The RTC ruled in favour of BPI Butuan and thus, EJF of
be proven by facts and causal connection with the spouses mortgages property.
the acts of the entity who filed such case against
the corporation. The spouses filed an action for injunction with damages
with a prayer for a restraining order and/or writ of
STATEMENT OF FACTS: preliminary injunction
Spouses Crystal obtained a 300,000 peso loan on behalf The spouses claimed that the foreclosure of the real
of Cebu Contractors Consortium Co (CCCC) from the estate mortgages is illegal because BPI should have
BPI Butuan Branch. The loan as secured by a chattel exhausted CCCC’s properties first, stressing that they
mortgage on machinery and heavy equipment of CCCC. are mere guarantors of the renewed loans. They also
prayed that they be awarded moral and exemplary
Spouses Crystal on the same day of obtaining the loan damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and cost of
executed a continuing suretyship and bound themselves suit.\
as surety of CCCC in the principal sum of not exceeding
300k The spouses then filed an amended complaint alleging
that CCCC opened a foreign currency account with BPI-
Thereafter, one of the spouses Crystal namely Makati and that the account was used as security for a
Raymundo executed a PN for 300k in also in favour of loan in BPI Makati which was allegedly paid but BPI-
BPI Butuan Makati did not return the passbook and blames BPI-
Makati for the failure of payment of the other obligations
of the spouses.
Later, CCCC renewed a previous loan this time from BPI
Cebu city and the renewal was evidenced by a PN
signed by the spouses crystal in their personal capacity RTC: Spouses are solidarily liable and the mortgages
and as managing partners. The promissory note states were valid & spouses have no benefit of exhaustion
that the spouses are jointly and severally liable with because they were guarantors-mortgagors
CCCC. It appears that before the original loan could be
granted, BPI-Cebu City required CCCC to put up a The spouses appealed the decision of the trial court to
security. the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was
dismissed.The spouses moved for the reconsideration of
Since CCC had no real property to offer security, the the decision, but the Court of Appeals also denied their
spouses executed a REM over their property and motion for reconsideration.Hence, the present petition.
another REM in favour of BPI-Cebu to secure the (In the proceeding in the SC, The spouses Crystal are
additional loan of 20,000 of the CCCC. represented by their heirs)