In the case of Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Liwayway Abasolo, the Supreme Court ruled that a bank could not be held subsidiarily liable for the failure of a borrower to pay the seller of a property, even if a bank employee had allegedly assured the seller that the loan proceeds would be directly paid to her. The Court emphasized that contracts only take effect between the parties involved, their assigns, and heirs, unless there is a clear and deliberate conferment of a favor upon a third person, which was not proven in this case. This decision clarifies the responsibilities of banks in loan agreements and the importance of documented agreements to establish obligations to third parties.

When a Bank’s Promise Isn’t Enough: Examining Third-Party Rights in Loan Transactions

The case revolves around Liwayway Abasolo, who, acting as an attorney-in-fact for the heirs of Leonor Valenzuela-Rosales, sought to sell two parcels of land. Corazon Marasigan expressed interest in buying the properties but lacked the necessary funds. The proposed solution involved Corazon mortgaging the properties to Prudential Bank and Trust Company (PBTC), with the loan proceeds intended to pay Liwayway directly. Allegedly, a PBTC employee advised Liwayway to transfer the properties to Corazon and act as a co-maker for the loan, assuring her that the proceeds would be released to both. Based on this assurance, Liwayway executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Corazon. However, PBTC released the loan proceeds directly to Corazon without a written request for a bank guarantee, and Corazon failed to fully pay Liwayway for the properties, leading to a legal battle.

The central legal question is whether PBTC could be held subsidiarily liable for Corazon’s failure to pay Liwayway, based on the alleged assurances of its employee. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Liwayway, holding PBTC subsidiarily liable, finding that the bank had breached its obligation to release the loan proceeds directly to her. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision with a slight modification in the amount owed. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, ultimately absolving PBTC of any subsidiary liability.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the principle of relativity of contracts, as enshrined in Article 1311 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent.

If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person. 

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that for Liwayway to successfully claim against PBTC, it must be proven that the bank clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon her. The Court noted that a written request for a bank guarantee would have served as sufficient proof, given the nature of the banking business and the significant amount involved. Absent such evidence, the Court found that no obligation was established between PBTC and Liwayway. Without an established obligation, there could be no breach, and thus, PBTC could not be held subsidiarily liable.

The Court also addressed the argument that Liwayway relied on the representations of Norberto Mendiola, the PBTC employee. However, the Court found that the contract for the sale of the properties between Liwayway and Corazon was perfected when they agreed on the object (the properties) and the price. The source of the funds to pay the purchase price was the only matter yet to be resolved when they consulted Mendiola. This indicates that Liwayway’s primary reliance was on Corazon’s promise to pay, evidenced by the promissory note, rather than on any guarantee from PBTC. The Court quoted Liwayway’s testimony, highlighting that she asked Corazon to execute the promissory note as assurance that she would be paid before she executed the deed of sale.

Q: We are referring to the promissory note which you aforementioned a while ago, why did this promissory note come about?

A: Because the negotiation was already completed, sir, and the deed of sale will have to be executed, I asked the defendant (Corazon) to execute the promissory note first before I could execute a deed of absolute sale, for assurance that she really pay me, sir.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the application of the doctrine of apparent authority, which holds a principal liable for the actions of its agent, even if the agent is secretly abusing their authority. Citing Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that a banking corporation can be liable to innocent third parties when a representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of their authority. However, the Court emphasized that the burden of proving that the agent attempted to commit fraud or abused their authority rests on the party claiming it, in this case, Liwayway.

In this case, Liwayway failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mendiola colluded with Corazon to defraud her or that Mendiola would benefit from the approval of Corazon’s loan application. The Court noted that even in Liwayway’s complaint, the allegation of fraud was specifically directed against Corazon, not Mendiola. The absence of such evidence further weakened Liwayway’s claim against PBTC.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of sound lending practices for banking institutions. Section X302 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks emphasizes the need for banks to establish a system for identifying and monitoring potential problem loans and maintaining adequate loss reserves. Issuing a bank guarantee without a formal request and proper documentation would be contrary to these established banking practices. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to these practices to minimize risk and ensure the stability of the banking system.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Liwayway Abasolo underscores the significance of contractual privity and the requirement for clear and deliberate intent to benefit a third party in contract law. It also highlights the importance of documented agreements and adherence to sound lending practices in the banking industry. This ruling serves as a reminder that reliance on verbal assurances, without supporting evidence, may not be sufficient to establish legal obligations against a party not directly involved in a contract.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Prudential Bank could be held subsidiarily liable for the failure of Corazon Marasigan to pay Liwayway Abasolo the purchase price of properties, based on alleged assurances made by a bank employee.
What is the principle of relativity of contracts?	The principle of relativity of contracts, as stated in Article 1311 of the Civil Code, means that contracts only take effect between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, unless otherwise stipulated or provided by law. A third party can only benefit if there is a clear and deliberate conferment of a favor upon them.
What is the doctrine of apparent authority?	The doctrine of apparent authority holds a principal liable for the actions of its agent, even if the agent is secretly abusing their authority, as long as the representation is made in the course of the business and within the general scope of the agent’s authority.
Why was the bank not held liable in this case?	The bank was not held liable because there was no clear and deliberate act of conferring a favor upon Liwayway, and no written request for a bank guarantee was made. Also, Liwayway failed to prove collusion between the bank employee and Corazon.
What evidence would have supported Liwayway’s claim against the bank?	A written request for a bank guarantee, or evidence showing that the bank employee colluded with Corazon to defraud Liwayway, would have supported her claim.
What is the significance of a promissory note in this case?	The promissory note executed by Corazon in favor of Liwayway indicated that Liwayway relied on Corazon’s promise to pay, rather than on any guarantee from the bank.
What are sound lending practices?	Sound lending practices involve establishing a system for identifying and monitoring potential problem loans, maintaining adequate loss reserves, and adhering to proper documentation procedures.
Against whom does Liwayway have a valid cause of action?	Liwayway has a valid cause of action against Corazon Marasigan, who failed to fully pay the purchase price of the properties.

This case emphasizes the importance of clear documentation and contractual privity in financial transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that banks are not automatically liable for the debts of their borrowers to third parties, unless a clear and deliberate agreement to that effect is established. The ruling also calls attention to the need for parties to secure written guarantees and avoid relying solely on verbal assurances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Liwayway Abasolo, G.R. No. 186738, September 27, 2010