MARCELINO BUYCO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ILOILO BRANCH,
ILOILO CITY, Respondent-Appellant.
Efrain B. Treñas for Petitioner-Appellee.
Ramon B. de los Reyes and Nemesio C. Vargas for Respondent-Appellant.
PAREDES, J.:
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Marcelino Buyco was indebted to PNB in the amount of P5,102.90 plus interest for his deficit on his 1952-53 crop loan which was secured bu real property mortgage.
2. Buyco is a holder of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate No. 4801, dated July 9, 1955, under Rep. Act No. 897 in the amount of P22,227.69 payable in thirty (30) years.
3. 24 April 1956: He offered to pay his remaining loan through his backpay certificate but on 18 July 1956, respondent answered that since respondent's motion for consideration in Marcelino B. Florention VS. Philippine National Bank was still under consideration by SC, respondent PNB cannot yet grant petitioner's request.
4. The SC denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration in the case. Then respondent Buyco reiterated his requestion to pay the loan using the certificate.
5. 19 February 1957, respondent answer that as per the amendment of its charted or 16 June 1956 by R.A. 1576, PNB could not accept the certificate as payment. Respondent requested to reconsider its decision but the PNB's legal department expressed that notwithstanding the SC's decision, they still couldn't accept the certificate due to their Charter's amendment.
6. July 24, 1958: CFI Iloilo granted Buyco's petition and ordered the respondent bank "to give due course of the vested right of the petitioner acquired previous to the enactment of Republic Act No. 1576 by accepting his backpay acknowledgment certificate as payment of the obligation of the petitioner with respondent Bank with costs of the proceedings against the respondent."
ISSUE:
W/N Buyco's backpay certificate which he submitted on 24 April 1956 be admitted as payment of his loan regardless of the provisions of their amended charter with regard to R.A. 1576 which was only amended on 16 June 1956.
RULING:
YES. It can be admitted notwithstanding the amendment. It was only about 2 months after he submitted his backpay certificate before the amendment of their Charter took place.
As the lower court pointed out, the appellant herein had impliedly admitted the right of the petitioner to apply his backpay certificate in payment of his obligation. This notwithstanding, whether implied or expressed, the admission by the appellant of appellee’s right, has already lost momentum or importance, because the law on the matter on April 24, 1956, when the offer to pay the obligation with the certificate was made, or the law before the amendatory Act of June 16, 1956, was the PNB was compelled to receive petitioner’s backpay certificate.
Thus, their charter in connection with R.A. 1576 cannot be applied retroactively.
TOPIC:
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; LAWS SHALL GENERALLY HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided (art 4, NCC), for it is said that the law looks to the future only and has no retroactive effect unless the legislator may have formally given that effect to some legal provisions (Lopez, Et. Al. v. Crow, 40 Phil.997), and that statutes are to be construed as having only prospective operation, unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used, and that in case of doubt the same must be resolved against retrospective effect (Montilla v. Augustinian Corp., 24 Phil.220).
Comments
Post a Comment