Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Tayug Rural Bank vs. Central Bank of the Phils. (G.R. No. L-46158, Nov.

28, 1986) FACTS: Tayug Rural is a bank in Pangasinan which took out 13 loans from Central Bank in 1962 and 1963, all covered by promissory notes, amounting to 813k. In late 1964, Central Bank released a circular; Memorandum Circular No. DLC-8 thru the Director of Loans and Credit. This circular all informed all rural banks that an additional 10% per annum penalty interest would be assessed on all past due loans beginning 1965. This was enforced beginning July 1965. In 1969, the outstanding balance of Tayug was at 444k. Tayug Rural filed a case in CFI Manila to recover the 10% penalty it paid up to 1968, amounting to about 16k, and to restrain Central bank from further imposing the penalty. Central Bank filed a counterclaim for the outstanding balance including the 10% penalty, stating that it was legally imposed under the Rules and Regulations Governing Rural Banks promulgated by the Monetary Board on 1958, under RA 720. Tayugs defense was that the counterclaim should be dismissed since the unpaid obligation of Tayug was due to Central Banks flexible and double standard policy of its rediscounting privileges to Tayug Rural and its subsequent arbitrary and illegal imposition of the 10% penalty. Tayug Rural contends that no such 10% penalty starting from 1965 was included in the promissory notes covering the loans. A judgment was rendered by CFI Manila in favor of Central Bank ordering Tayug Rural Bank to pay 10% penalty in the amount of around 19k pesos for loans up to July 1969, and to pay nothing for the next remaining loans. Tayugs claim in the case was however successful, and so Tayug was also ordered to pay 444k, with interest to the Central Bank for the overdue accounts with respect to the promissory notes. Central Bank appealed to the CA, but also lost on the ground that only a legal question had been raised in the pleadings. The case was then raised to the SC, with each party arguing in the following manner: CFI rules that the circulars retroactive effect on past due loans impairs the obligation of contracts and deprives Tayug Rural of property without due process of law. Central Bank reasons that Tayug Rural, despite the loans, should have known that rules and regulations authorize the Central Bank to impose additional reasonable penalties.

ISSUE: WON The Central Bank can validly impose the 10% penalty via Memorandum Circular No. DLC-8 HELD: NO. A reading of the circular and pertinent provisions, including that of RA 720, shows that nowhere therein is the authority given to the Monetary Board to mete out additional penalties to the rural banks on past due accounts with the Central Bank. As said by the CFI, while the Monetary Board possesses broad supervisory powers, nonetheless, the retroactive imposition of administrative penalties cannot be taken as a measure SUPERVISORY in character. Administrative rules have the force and effect of law. There are, however, limitations in the rulemaking power of administrative agencies. All that is required of administrative rules and regulations is to implement given legislation by not contradicting it and conform to the standards prescribed by law. Rules and regulations cannot go beyond the basic law. Since compliance therewith can be enforced by a penal sanction, an administrative agency cannot implement a penalty not provided in the law authorizing it, much less one that is applied retroactively. The new clause imposing an additional penalty was not part of the promissory notes when Tayug

Rural took out its loans. The law cannot be given retroactive effect. More to the point, the Monetary Board revoked the additional penalty later in 1970, which clearly shows an admission that it had no power to impose the same. The Central bank hoped to rectify the defect by revising the DLC Form later. However, Tayug Rural must pay the additional 10% in case of suit, since in the promissory notes, 10% should be paid in attorneys fees and costs of suit and collection. Judgment AFFIRMED with modification.

Firestone Tire Company vs. Lariosa GR no. 70479 February 27, 1987 FACTS: Carlos Lariosa work in Firestone as factory worker. When he was about to leave thecompany premises, he was frisked by security guard because while his personal bag wasinspected, there were 16 wool flannel swabs all belonging to the company. As a result, he was terminated by firestone on the ground of stealing company propertyand loss of trust. The company also files criminal complaint for attempted theft. Lariosa, onother hand, filed a case for illegal dismissal Labor Arbiter found the dismissal just bust theNLRC reversed the decision.Firestone contends that NLRC erred in not dismissing Lariosas appeal for being late. ISSUE:Whether or not the appeal filed by Lariosa n NLRC was filed late. RULING: Lariosa filed his appeal on June 7, 1984 or after the lapse of 14 days from the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter.Under the Labor Code, the reglementary period for which an appeal from decision of labor arbiter may be filed to NLRC is within a period of ten days.The ten-day period has to be interpreted to mean as ten calendar days and not ten workingdays

Gonzaga vs David GR no. L-14858 December 29, 1960 FACTS: Mariano Gonzales, as owner of a cargo truck and passenger bus, registers the vehiclesand pays the first installment for registration fees due on 1957. To cover the second installmentfor registration fees, he remitted to the provincial treasurer of Cagayan, by registered mail, theamount of P500.00, under postal money orders.The postal cancellation mark on the envelope containing the remittance bears the date August 31, 1957. The registrar of the Motor Vehicle Office ruled that pursuant to Revised Motor Vehicle Law, the second installment for registration fees was payable on or before the lastworking day of August. The last working day of August 1957 was Friday, August 30, 1957. Andconsequently, the remittance of Gonzaga which bears cancellation mark dated August 31, 1957was made beyond time fixed by law. ISSUE:Whether or not the remittance for second installment of registration fees was made beyond thetime fixed by law.

RULING: The Motor Vehicle Office in Cagayan had no office on Saturday, August 31, 1957.However, it was immaterial the last working day contemplated in the Revised Motor Vehicle Lawshould not necessarily mean the last working day of Motor Vehicle Office. The fact that August31, 1957 was declared a special public holiday did not have the effect of making the precedingday, August 30, the last day for paying registration fees without penalty.Moreover, under the said law, for payment of registration fees by mail, the date of cancellation of the postage stamps of the envelope containing the remittance is considered thedate of application

Rural Bank of Caloocan vs CA GR no. L-32116 April 21, 1981 FACTS: Maxima Castro, accompanied by Severino Valencia, went to Rural Bank of Caloocan toapply for industrial loan. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on Castors house,after that, the bank approved the loan of P3000. Valencia obtained from the bank an equalamount of loan affixing Castros signature as co-maker without its knowledge. The sheriff then sent a notice announcing the property would be sold at public auction tosatisfy the obligation. Upon request, the auction sale which was scheduled for March 10, 1961was postponed for April 10, 1961. But April 10 was subsequently declared a special holiday sothe sheriff sold the property on public auction on April 11, 1961 which was the next succeedingbusiness day following the special holiday.Castro prayed for the annulment of sale alleging that there was fraud on the part of Valencias who induced her to sign as co-maker of a promissory note since she is a 70-year oldwidow who cannot read and write and it was only when she receive the notice of sheriff, shelearned that the encumbrance on her property was P6000 and not for P3000. ISSUE:Whether or not the public auction sale was null and void for transferring the date already set bylaw. RULING: The sale is null and void for not having in accordance with Act 3135 which states thatthat a notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less than 20 days in at least 3public places and if the property is worth more than P400 such notice shall also be published for in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city once a week for 3 consecutiveweeks.The pretermission of a holiday applies only where the day, or the last day for doing anyact required or permitted by law falls on a holiday or when the last day of a given period for doing an act falls on holiday. It does not apply to a day fixed by an office or officer of thegovernment for an act to be done.Since April 10, 1961 was not the day or the last day set by law for the extrajudicialforeclosure sale, nor the last day of a given period but a date fixed by deputy sheriff, the salecannot be legally made on the next succeeding business day without the noticef the sale inaccordance with Act no. 3135

S-ar putea să vă placă și