In Equitable PCI Bank v. Manila Adjusters & Surveyors, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed that banks must strictly comply with the terms of a letter of credit (LOC) and can be held liable for damages if they unjustifiably refuse to pay when the beneficiary has submitted all required documents. This decision reinforces the principle that LOCs are independent contracts, separate from the underlying transaction, and banks must honor their commitments based on the documents presented. This means that businesses relying on LOCs for payment can have greater confidence in their enforceability, while banks must ensure meticulous adherence to LOC terms to avoid liability.

Breach of Contract and Letters of Credit: Who Pays When Agreements Fall Apart?

This case originated from a Deed of Sale between Ilocos Sur Federation of Farmers Cooperative, Inc. (Federation) and Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. (Philam), represented by Manila Adjusters and Surveyors, Company (MASCO), for salvaged fertilizers. The Federation agreed to pay P5,159,725.00 in installments and was required to open an irrevocable LOC for P1,000,000.00 in favor of MASCO to ensure compliance. Equitable PCI Bank (Bank) issued Domestic LOC No. D-75126, which was later amended to extend the expiry date and specify that MASCO could draw on the LOC upon certifying the Federation’s non-compliance. The Federation defaulted after paying only a portion of the total amount, leading MASCO to demand payment from the Bank, submitting documents including a letter-claim, the original LOC, and a certification of default. However, the Bank refused to pay, prompting legal action.

The Federation initially filed a Complaint for replevin and damages against MASCO and Philam, later amending it to include the Bank to prevent payment of the LOC. The Bank denied receiving the letter-claim and filed a cross-claim against MASCO, arguing the latter failed to present the required draft. Additionally, the Bank filed a Third-Party Complaint against Ng Yek Kiong and Ernesto Cokai based on a surety agreement. During the trial, the Federation and MASCO jointly stipulated that MASCO had duly filed a claim against the LOC after the Federation’s default. Despite this, the Bank maintained it never received the necessary documents and claimed the Federation instructed them not to release the LOC proceeds due to MASCO’s alleged violation of the sale terms.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of MASCO, finding the Federation failed to comply with the Deed of Sale and MASCO properly filed its claim against the LOC. The RTC ordered the Bank to pay MASCO the LOC amount of P1,000,000.00 plus interest. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s findings, agreeing that MASCO complied with the conditions to claim the LOC proceeds. The CA cited Article 2209 of the Civil Code, entitling MASCO to interest at 12% per annum but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Bank then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing for strict compliance with LOC terms and questioning the interest calculation during an injunction period.

The Supreme Court emphasized that its review was limited to questions of law, and the Bank’s contention that it did not receive the required documents was a factual issue already decided by the lower courts. Quoting Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, the Court reiterated that factual questions are not the proper subject of a certiorari appeal. The Court deferred to the CA and RTC’s findings that MASCO had presented the necessary documents, which the Bank failed to overturn with sufficient evidence. The Court noted the Bank’s defense relied primarily on denying receipt without substantial corroboration.

The Court addressed the Bank’s argument regarding an injunction that temporarily prevented payment of the LOC. It stated that the Bank did not provide sufficient legal basis to exclude the injunction period from interest calculation. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the Bank did not offer any alternative to demonstrate its willingness to pay despite the injunction and the Federation’s instructions. Therefore, the Court upheld the interest calculation from the date of extrajudicial demand, October 8, 1975, while modifying the interest rates to comply with current legal guidelines as outlined in Nacar v. Gallery Frames.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle of strict compliance in letter of credit transactions. The Bank’s obligation to pay arises independently of the underlying contract between the buyer and the seller, provided that the beneficiary presents the required documents. This independence principle is crucial for the reliability and efficiency of international trade transactions facilitated by letters of credit. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of honoring commitments made under letters of credit, ensuring beneficiaries receive payment when they meet the stipulated conditions. By affirming the lower courts’ findings, the Supreme Court solidified the Bank’s responsibility to fulfill its obligations under the LOC.

The implications of this ruling are significant for both banks and beneficiaries of letters of credit. Banks must exercise diligence in handling LOC transactions and ensure they have robust procedures for receiving and processing documents. Beneficiaries, on the other hand, must meticulously comply with the documentary requirements specified in the LOC to guarantee payment. The case also clarifies the calculation of legal interest in cases involving letters of credit, aligning it with prevailing jurisprudence. This decision reinforces the integrity of letters of credit as a reliable payment mechanism and provides guidance for parties involved in LOC transactions.

FAQs

What is a letter of credit (LOC)?	A letter of credit is a guarantee issued by a bank on behalf of a buyer, assuring the seller that payment will be made upon fulfillment of specific conditions outlined in the LOC. It is a common instrument used in international trade to mitigate payment risks.
What does “strict compliance” mean in the context of LOCs?	Strict compliance requires the beneficiary of a letter of credit to precisely meet all documentary requirements specified in the LOC. Any discrepancies, no matter how minor, can justify the issuing bank’s refusal to pay.
What documents did MASCO allegedly submit to the Bank?	MASCO claimed to have submitted a letter-claim, the original LOC, the original advice of LOC amendment extending the expiry date, the original of the draft drawn with the Bank, and the certification of default.
Why did the Bank refuse to pay MASCO?	The Bank claimed it did not receive the required documents and that the Federation instructed them not to release the LOC proceeds because MASCO allegedly violated the terms of the sale.
What was the RTC’s ruling?	The RTC ruled that the Federation failed to comply with the Deed of Sale and MASCO properly filed its claim against the LOC. It ordered the Bank to pay MASCO the LOC amount of P1,000,000.00 plus interest.
How did the CA modify the RTC’s decision?	The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings but deleted the award of attorney’s fees, maintaining the order for the Bank to pay MASCO the LOC amount with interest.
What was the Supreme Court’s main basis for its decision?	The Supreme Court primarily relied on the factual findings of the lower courts, which established that MASCO had submitted the required documents to the Bank. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn these findings.
How did the Supreme Court modify the interest calculation?	The Supreme Court modified the interest rates to comply with current legal guidelines, applying 12% per annum from October 8, 1975, until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the judgment’s finality.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Equitable PCI Bank v. Manila Adjusters & Surveyors, Inc. serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding the integrity of letters of credit. Banks must adhere to the principle of strict compliance and honor their obligations when beneficiaries present the required documents. This case reinforces the reliability of LOCs as a payment mechanism in commercial transactions and provides valuable guidance for parties involved in LOC transactions.

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: Equitable PCI Bank v. Manila Adjusters & Surveyors, Inc., G.R. No. 166726, November 25, 2019