Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Tankeh PDF

    Uploaded by

    Lurine Smith
    law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tankeh PDF

    Uploaded by

    Lurine Smith
    14 views2 pages
    law

    Original Title

    Tankeh.pdf

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Tankeh PDF

    Uploaded by

    Lurine Smith
    law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    8/18/2019 Tankeh vs.

    Dbp (Digest)

    G.R. No. 171428 November 11, 2013

    ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH, Petitioner, vs.


    DEVELOPMENT ANK O! THE PH"L"PP"NE#, #TERL"NG #H"PP"NG L"NE#, "N$., R%PERTO V. TANKEH, V"$ENTE
    ARENA#,&'(A##ET PR"VAT")AT"ONTR%#T,Respondents.

    Facts:

    Sometime in 1980, Alejandro was approached b  his brother, R!perto "president o# SS$% in#ormin& him that the latter was
    operatin& a new shippin& line b!siness and o##ered him 1000 shares worth P1' to be a director o# the b!siness. Alejandro accepted the o##er
    based on the promised that he be part o# the admin sta## so that he can oversee the operation o# the b!siness pl!s his son, who is a practicin&
    law er wo!ld be &iven a position in the compan .

    A loan was applied #rom ()P #or #inancin& o# an ocean*&oin& vessel with the conditions that the #irst mort&a&e is obtained over
    the vessel, the #!t!re earnin&s o# the mort&a&e incl!din& proceeds sho!ld be assi&ned to ()P and ()P is assi&ned to no less than +- o# the
    votin& shares o# the compan . Alejandro si&ned the Assi&nment o# Shares o# Stoc  with /otin& Ri&hts and the promissor  note
    main& him liable jointl and severall #or the amo!nt o# the loan. A#ter the vessel is ac!ired, a deed o# assi&nment was eec!ted in
    #avor o# ()P. 2n 1983, !pon reali4in& that he was onl  bein& made a tool to reali4e the p!rposes o# R!perto, Alejandro o##iciall 
    in#ormed the compan  b  means o# letter that he has severed his connection with the compan  and as in& the board to pass a resol!tion
    to released him #rom his liabilities with ()P and noti#  the latter abo!t this.

    2n 198+, the acco!nt o# SS$ in the ()P were trans#erred to Asset Privati4ation 5r!st b  virt!e o# Presidential

    P(reoscplaitme tahteionas6soi&.n7m0e. n5thaendascsaesthinecl!ditin&colonatrnibi!nti#oanvoor#oS#S($)tPo

    cwoevreropradretroe#dthtoebaectr!ainsist#ioenrrecdosttoot#htehenavteiosnsaell&aonvdetrhnemlei net,. the promissor  note still s!


    bsisted. ence, Alejandro is still bo!nd as a debtor beca!se o# the promissor note.

    A*e+&'(ro- o'/e'/o' 5he promisorr note m!st be declared as n!ll and void and he be absolved #rom an liabilit. R!perto eercised
    deceit and #ra!d in ca!sin& him to bind himsel# jointl  and severall  to pa  ()P the amo!nt o# the mort&a&e loan. All the mone  s!
    pposedl  invested b  him were p!t b  R!perto, hence he had never invested an  mone .
    e was invited to attend the board meetin& onl once and he was never compensated b SS$ #or bein& called director
    and stocholder. 6one o# the promises o# R!perto was complied with.

    ss!e: 26 the #ra!d perpetrated b R!perto is serio!s eno!&h to warrant ann!lment o# the contract;

    R!lin&: 6o. 2nl incidental #ra!d eists in this case. 5here#ore it is not s!##icient to warrant the ann!lment o# the contracts petitioner
    entered into b!t respondent R!perto is liable to pa  him dama&es. 5he distinction between #ra!d as a &ro!nd #or renderin& a contract
    voidable or as basis #or an award o# dama&es is provided in Article 13<<: n order that #ra!d ma  ma e a contract voidable, it sho!ld be
    serio!s and sho!ld not have been emploed b both contractin& parties. ncidental
    #ra!d onl obli&es the person emploin& it to pa dama&es.

    5here are two tpes o# #ra!d contemplated in the per#ormance o# contracts: dolo incidente or incidental #ra!d and dolo ca!sante or #ra!d
    serio!s eno!&h to render a contract voidable. # there is #ra!d in the per#ormance o# the contract, then this #ra!d will &ive rise to dama&es.
    # the #ra!d did not compel the imp!tin& part to &ive his or her consent, it ma  not serve as the basis to ann!l the contract, which
    e hibits dolo ca!sante. owever, the part  alle&in& the e istence o# #ra!d ma  prove the e istence o# dolo incidente. 5his ma 
    mae the part a&ainst whom #ra!d is alle&ed liable #or dama&es. Article 13<0 o# the =ivil =ode reco&ni4es the realit  o# some
    ea&&erations in trade which ne&ates #ra!d. t reads: 5he
    !s!al ea&&erations in trade, when the other part  had an opport!nit  to now the #acts, are not in themselves #ra!d!lent.

    >iven the standin& and stat!re o# the petitioner, he was in a position to ascertain more in#ormation abo!t the contract.
    5he #ollowin& #acts show that petitioner was #!ll  aware o# the ma&nit!de o# his !nderta in&: ! r-/, petitioner was #!ll  aware o# the
    #inancial reverses that SS$ had been !nder&oin&, and he too &reat pains to release himsel# #rom the obli&ation. #eo'(, his bac&ro!nd
    as a doctor, as a ban or&ani4er, and as a b!sinessman with eperience in the tetile b!siness and real estate sho!ld have apprised him o#
    the irre&!larit in the contract that he wo!ld be !nderta in&. 5his meant that at the time petitioner &ave his consent to become a part o# the
    corporation, he had been #!ll aware o# the circ!mstances and the ris s o# his participation. ntent is determined b  the acts. ! '&** ,
    the records showed that petitioner had been #!ll  aware o# the e##ect o# his si&nin& the promissor  note. 5he bare assertion that he was
    not priv to the records cannot co!nteract the #act that petitioner himsel# had admitted that a#ter he had severed ties with his brother, he had
    written a letter seein& to reach an amicable settlement with respondent R!pert. Petitioner?s actions de#ied his claim o# a complete lac  o#
    awareness re&ardin& the circ!mstances and the contract he had been enterin&.

    5he re!ired standard o# proo# @ clear and convincin& evidence @ was not met. 5here was no dolo ca!sante or #ra!d !sed to obtain the
    petitioner?s consent to enter into the contract. Petitioner had the opport!nit  to become aware o# the #acts that attended the si&nin& o# the
    promissor note. e even admitted that he has a lawer*son who the petitioner had hoped wo!ld assist him in the administration o#
    Sterlin& Shippin& $ines, nc. 5he totalit o# the #acts on record belies petitioner?s claim that #ra!d was !sed to obtain his consent to the
    contract &iven his personal circ!mstances and the applicable law.

    owever, in re#!sin& to allow petitioner to participate in the mana&ement o# the b!siness, respondent R!perto /. 5an eh was liable #or the
    commission o# incidental #ra!d. n >eralde4, this =o!rt de#ined incidental #ra!d as those which are not serio!s in character and witho!t
    which the other part wo!ld still have entered into the contract. Altho!&h there was no
    #ra!d that had been !ndertaen to obtain petitioner?s consent, there was #ra!d in the per#ormance o# the contract.

    http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tankeh-vs-dbp-digest 1/1
    This study source was downloaded by 100000822333352 from CourseHero.com on 03-30-2021 09:44:19 GMT -05:00

    https://www.coursehero.com/file/49838256/Tankehpdf/

    You might also like