Petitioners took out a loan from Republic Planters Bank (RPBank) but fully repaid the loan plus additional amounts that were deducted without authorization from their sugar export proceeds by the Philippine Sugar Commission (Philsucom). Petitioners filed a complaint against RPBank, Philsucom, and the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) which recently replaced Philsucom. The trial court dismissed the case against the SRA. The Supreme Court determined that the dismissal was premature because petitioners could have a valid claim against the SRA if they are able to prove lawful claims against Philsucom, and if the SRA took over any of Philsucom's remaining assets. The SRA could be liable for any unpaid claims
Petitioners took out a loan from Republic Planters Bank (RPBank) but fully repaid the loan plus additional amounts that were deducted without authorization from their sugar export proceeds by the Philippine Sugar Commission (Philsucom). Petitioners filed a complaint against RPBank, Philsucom, and the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) which recently replaced Philsucom. The trial court dismissed the case against the SRA. The Supreme Court determined that the dismissal was premature because petitioners could have a valid claim against the SRA if they are able to prove lawful claims against Philsucom, and if the SRA took over any of Philsucom's remaining assets. The SRA could be liable for any unpaid claims
Petitioners took out a loan from Republic Planters Bank (RPBank) but fully repaid the loan plus additional amounts that were deducted without authorization from their sugar export proceeds by the Philippine Sugar Commission (Philsucom). Petitioners filed a complaint against RPBank, Philsucom, and the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) which recently replaced Philsucom. The trial court dismissed the case against the SRA. The Supreme Court determined that the dismissal was premature because petitioners could have a valid claim against the SRA if they are able to prove lawful claims against Philsucom, and if the SRA took over any of Philsucom's remaining assets. The SRA could be liable for any unpaid claims
Petitioners took out a loan from Republic Planters Bank (RPBank) but fully repaid the loan plus additional amounts that were deducted without authorization from their sugar export proceeds by the Philippine Sugar Commission (Philsucom). Petitioners filed a complaint against RPBank, Philsucom, and the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) which recently replaced Philsucom. The trial court dismissed the case against the SRA. The Supreme Court determined that the dismissal was premature because petitioners could have a valid claim against the SRA if they are able to prove lawful claims against Philsucom, and if the SRA took over any of Philsucom's remaining assets. The SRA could be liable for any unpaid claims
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
GONZALES vs.
SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION extent of the fair value of assets actually taken over by the SRA from G.R. No. 84606 Philsucom, if any. To this extent, claimants against Philsucom do have a right to follow Philsucom's assets in the hands of SRA or any other agency for that matter. FACTS: Petitioner spouses Gonzales filed a complaint seeking cancellation of a mortgage and recovery of a sum of money against the Republic Planters Bank ("RPBank"), Philippine Sugar Commission ("Philsucom") and the SRA.
Petitioners loaned a total of Php l,041,610.55 from RPBank; they repaid Php P 1,051,296.77. in other words, they had more than fully repaid their loan.
The complaint further alleged that Philsucom had deducted from the export sugar proceeds of petitioners the amount of P 421,517.32 without the authority and consent of petitioners with the result that petitioners had overpaid the RPBank by P 289,260.88.
RPBank, Philsucom and SRA moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground of lack of cause of action. The SRA also noted that while the deductions complained of were made by the Philsucom during the period from 1980 to 1984, the SRA itself had been created by Executive Order No. 18 only on 18 May 1986 and that it was not a party to the real estate mortgage between petitioners and the RPBank.
Respondent SRA further argues that according to Sec 13 of EO 18, did not provide for universal succession, as it were, of SRA to Philsucom, or more specifically to the assets and liabilities of Philsucom.
Trial Court dismissed the case in favor of SRA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of the case against SRA premature?
HELD: YES. Petitioners have a cause of action against SRA to the extent that they are able to prove lawful claims against Philsucom, and to the extent respondent SRA did, or does, in fact take over all or some of the assets of Philsucom.
Should the assets of Philsucom remaining in Philsucom at the time of its
abolition not be adequate to pay for all lawful claims against Philsucom, respondent SRA must be held liable for such claims against Philsucom to the
RAMON P. JACINTO and JAIME J. COLAYCO, Petitioners, vs. FIRST WOMENS CREDIT CORPORATION, Represented in This Derivative Suit by SHIG KATAYAMA, Respondents
