Ponente: Cortez, J.:
Facts:
1. The petitioner was granted a credit
facility and revolving fund by BPI consisting of several amounts. Both were secured
by a mortgage. The facility was granted as part of an amicable settlement
between BPI and Leobrera wherein the latter agreed to drop his claims for
damages against the former for its alleged failure to deliver on time three
export letters of credit opened in Leobrera's favor. In 1984, the facility was entirely converted
into a revolving promissory note line. The line was last renewed on 21 March 1986
evidenced by two 90-day promissory notes.
2. Leobrera also obtained from BPI a separate three-year term loan in the amount
of P 500,000.00 evidenced by Promissory Note. This three-year term loan was secured by a third real
estate mortgage. Upon maturity of the 90-day notes, BPI and Leobrera negotiated on the terms of
their renewal. No agreement having been reached by them, so BPI demanded the full
payment of the loan.
3. Leobrera failed to settle his loan account thus BPI
prepared to foreclose the real estate mortgages securing the same. Before BPI
could institute foreclosure proceedings however, Leobrera filed on 6 January
1987 a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin BPI from foreclosing the mortgages.
4. The trial court issued an order restraining BPI
from foreclosing the real estate mortgages securing the 90 day loans and, after
hearing, issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, on 9 February 1987, the bank wrote
Leobrera claiming that he failed to pay the amortization due on the three-year
term loan, as a result of which, BPI opted to accelarate the maturity of the
loan and called the entire loan due and demandable. Leobrera likewise failed to
remit the amount due and BPI thus threatened to foreclose the real estate
mortgage securing the loan.
5. Before BPI could foreclose the mortgage, petitioner
filed with the trial court on 11 March 1987 a "Motion to File Supplemental
Complaint," attaching the supplemental complaint which prayed for
the issuance of an injunction to restrain BPI from foreclosing the third
mortgage. The next day, 12 March 1987, the trial court granted Leobrera's
motion to file the supplemental complaint and issued a restraining order
enjoining BPI from proceeding with any "Legal, court or other
action" arising from the promissory note evidencing the
three-year term loan.
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in admitting the supplemental complaint
YES.
1. The Court ruled that when the cause of action stated in the supplemental
complaint is different from the causes of action mentioned in the original
complaint, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint; the parties
may file supplemental pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an
original pleading, but not to introduce new and independent causes of action.
As to the
supplemental complaint, what likewise militates against its admission is the
fact that the matters involved therein are entirely different from the causes
of action mentioned in the original complaint.
2. The petitioner's main cause
of action in the original complaint filed in Civil Case No. 15644 concerned
BPI's threat to foreclose two real estate mortgages securing the two 90 day
promissory notes executed by petitioner in 1986. Petitioner alleges that this
threatened foreclosure violated the terms of the 1980 amicable settlement
between BPI and petitioner.While the supplemental complaint alleged acts of harassment committed by BPI in unreasonably opting to declare
petitioner in default and in demanding full liquidation of the 1985 three-year
term loan. This three-year term loan, as previously mentioned, was entirely
distinct and separate from the two promissory notes. It was independent of the
1980 amicable settlement between petitioner and BPI which gave rise to the
credit facility subject of the original complaint. Although there is Identity
in the remedies asked for in the original and supplemental complaints, i.e.
injunction, petitioner's subsequent cause of action giving rise to the claim
for damages in the supplemental complaint is unrelated to the amicable
settlement which brought about the grant of the credit facilities, the breach
of which settlement is alleged to be the basis of the original complaint.
As the allegations reveal, the P 500,000.00
three-year term loan is a transaction independent of the P 800,000.00 credit
facility and BPI's questioned act of threatening to foreclose the properties
securing said loan was the result of an alleged default by petitioner in the
payment of the amortization due for 9 February 1987 and not because of any
circumstance related to the 1980 amicable settlement.
The two causes of action being entirely different,
the latter one could not be successfully pleaded by supplemental complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment