In the Philippines, when a bank sells a loan to another entity during corporate rehabilitation proceedings, the rights to any related deposits also transfer unless specifically excluded in the sale agreement. This means the new loan owner, not the original bank, gains rights to these deposits. This ruling ensures that all aspects of the loan, including its securities, are transferred to the new creditor, streamlining the rehabilitation process and protecting the debtor from double claims.

From Metrobank to Elite Union: Who Gets the Deposit?

This case revolves around G & P Builders, Incorporated, which sought corporate rehabilitation and had a loan from Metrobank secured by several properties. During the rehabilitation, some properties were sold, and the proceeds of P15,000,000.00 were deposited with Metrobank. Subsequently, Metrobank sold G & P’s loan to Elite Union Investments Limited. The central legal question was: Did the rights to this P15,000,000.00 deposit transfer to Elite Union along with the loan, or did Metrobank retain those rights?

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the agreements between Metrobank, G & P Builders, and Elite Union, emphasized the importance of interpreting contracts based on their clear terms. Article 1370 of the Civil Code states that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. The Court referred to Abad v. Goldloop Properties, Inc., stating:

“[I]f the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.”

Building on this principle, the Court examined the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between G & P and Metrobank concerning the deposit. The MOA stipulated that the P15,000,000.00 would be deposited with Metrobank for subsequent disposition and application pursuant to a court-approved rehabilitation plan. Critically, this agreement did not specify that Metrobank would retain the funds irrespective of any loan transfer.

Further solidifying the transfer of rights, the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) between Metrobank and Elite Union included a clause assigning all of Metrobank’s rights, titles, and interests in the loan to Elite Union. This assignment, according to the Court, encompassed all accessory rights, such as securities and mortgages, as per Article 1627 of the Civil Code, which states: “The assignment of a credit includes all the accessory rights, such as a guaranty, mortgage, pledge[,] or preference.” Therefore, the P15,000,000.00 deposit, acting as security for the loan, was included in the transfer to Elite Union.

The Supreme Court also addressed procedural issues raised by Metrobank. Metrobank argued that the lower court’s orders were issued in excess of its jurisdiction because the rehabilitation plan had not been approved within the timeframe prescribed by the Interim Rules. However, the Court noted that Metrobank had actively participated in extending these timelines and could not now claim the court acted improperly. The court stated that Metrobank is estopped in assailing the trial court Orders when it availed itself of several extensions of time, whether directly or indirectly, during the rehabilitation proceedings.

Additionally, the Court found that Metrobank had committed a procedural error by appealing the trial court’s interlocutory orders via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Interlocutory orders are those that do not fully resolve the case but deal with incidental matters. The Supreme Court decision hinged on several key factors: the clear terms of the MOA, the comprehensive assignment of rights in the LSPA, and the procedural missteps by Metrobank.

In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the new creditor steps into the shoes of the original creditor, with all the associated rights and obligations. This approach protects the debtor (G & P Builders) from potential double claims and streamlines the rehabilitation process. Moreover, the ruling reinforces the principle that contracts should be interpreted based on their plain language, and parties cannot later claim intentions that are not reflected in the written agreements.

This case also underscores the importance of due diligence in loan sales. Banks must clearly delineate which assets are included or excluded in any transfer agreement to avoid disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions, highlighting the need for meticulous contract drafting and a thorough understanding of the legal implications of loan assignments, particularly within the context of corporate rehabilitation proceedings. This ensures transparency, protects debtors, and maintains the integrity of financial transactions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a P15,000,000.00 deposit, related to a loan, transferred to the new creditor (Elite Union) when Metrobank sold the loan during corporate rehabilitation proceedings.
What is corporate rehabilitation?	Corporate rehabilitation is a legal process where a financially distressed company can reorganize its finances and operations under court supervision to regain solvency. It aims to allow the company to continue operating and pay its debts over time.
What does Article 1370 of the Civil Code say about interpreting contracts?	Article 1370 states that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt about the parties’ intentions, the literal meaning of the contract should control. It prioritizes the expressed intention over any unstated or assumed intentions.
What is assignment of credit, and what does it include?	Assignment of credit is the transfer of a creditor’s rights to another party. According to Article 1627 of the Civil Code, it includes all accessory rights, such as guarantees, mortgages, pledges, and preferences related to the debt.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Metrobank?	The Court ruled against Metrobank because the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) assigned all of Metrobank’s rights to Elite Union without specifically excluding the P15,000,000.00 deposit. Metrobank’s LSPA declared that the outstanding principal balance of the loan is the total outstanding obligation.
What was the significance of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)?	The MOA between G & P and Metrobank established that the P15,000,000.00 deposit would be applied according to a court-approved rehabilitation plan. It did not specify that Metrobank would retain the deposit regardless of a loan transfer.
What procedural error did Metrobank commit?	Metrobank filed a Petition for Review (Rule 43) to challenge interlocutory orders instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65), which is the proper procedure for challenging such orders.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for banks?	The ruling emphasizes the need for banks to clearly specify which assets are included or excluded in loan transfer agreements. It highlights the importance of contract drafting and understanding legal implications.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the rights of creditors and debtors in corporate rehabilitation cases involving loan transfers. The ruling underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and adherence to proper legal procedures, ensuring fairness and transparency in financial transactions. The ruling benefits debtors undergoing rehabilitation, protects assignees, and provides much-needed stability and clarity in commercial relationships.

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: Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. G & P Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015