HSBC v. Spouses Broqueza

G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioners Gerong and Broqueza are employees of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). They are also members of respondent Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. Staff Retirement Plan.
In October 1990, petitioner Broqueza obtained a car loan in the amount of Php 175,000.00. In December 1991, she again applied and was granted an appliance loan in the amount of Php 24,000.00.
In 1993, a labor dispute arose between HSBC and its employees. Majority of HSBCs employees were terminated, among whom are petitioners Editha Broqueza and Fe Gerong.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the claim was premature as the loan obligations have not yet matured

RULING:

No. The Court affirms the findings of the lower courts that there is no date of payment indicated in the Promissory Notes. The RTC is correct in ruling that since the Promissory Notes do not contain a period, HSBCL-SRP has the right to demand immediate payment. Article 1179 of the Civil Code applies: Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once. The spouses Broquezas obligation to pay HSBCL-SRP is a pure obligation. The fact that HSBCL-SRP was content with the prior monthly check-off from Editha Broquezas salary is of no moment. Once Editha Broqueza defaulted in her monthly payment, HSBCL-SRP made a demand to enforce e a pure obligation.

 * Case digest by Immanuel Granada, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018 q

By |2018-07-06T03:13:42+00:00June 8th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment