78.

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE

BANK, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and CALVIN & ELSA
ARCILLA,
G.R. No. 129227. May 30, 2000

Facts:

Elsa Arcilla and her husband, Calvin Arcilla secured on three

occasions, loans from the Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage bank
in the amount of Php.107,946.00 as evidenced by the Promissory
Note executed by the spouses in favor of the said bank. To secure
payment of said loans, the spouses executed Real Estate Mortgages
in favor of the appellants (Banco Filipino) over their parcels of land.
The appellee spouses failed to pay their monthly amortization to
appellant. On September 2, 1985 the appellees filed a complaint for
Annulment of the Loan Contracts, Foreclosure Sale with Prohibitory
and Injunction which was granted by the RTC. Petitioners appealed
to the Court of Appeals, but the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred when it held that the cause of

action of the private respondents accrued on October 30, 1978 and
the filing of their complaint for annulment of their contracts in 1085
was not yet barred by the prescription

Ruling:

The court held that the petition is unmeritorious. Petitioners

claim that the action of the private respondents have prescribed is
bereft of merit. Under Article 1150 of the Civil Code, the time for
prescription of all kinds of action where there is no special provision
which ordains otherwise shall be counted from the day they may be
brought. Thus the period of prescription of any cause of action is
reckoned only from the date of the cause of action accrued. The
period should not be made to retroact to the date of the execution of
the contract, but from the date they received the statement of account
showing the increased rate of interest, for it was only from the
moment that they discovered the petitioners unilateral increase
thereof.
 79. LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC vs CONTINENTAL
CEMENT CORPORATION (CCC)
G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004
Facts:

On August 11, 1998, a letter of intent was executed by both

parties, Lafarge and CCC. Lafarge agreed to purchase the cement
business of CCC. On October 21, 1998, they entered into a Sale and
Purchase Agreement (SPA). The petitioners, at the time of such
transactions were aware of the pending case of CCC with the
Supreme Court entitled Asset Privatization Trust (APT) v. Court of
Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation. In anticipation of the
liability that the High Tribunal might adjudge against CCC, the
parties, under Clause 2 (c) of the SPA, allegedly agreed to retain from
the purchase price a portion of the contract price in the amount of
P117,020,846.84 -- the equivalent of US$2,799,140. This amount was
to be deposited in an interest-bearing account in the First National
City Bank of New York (Citibank) for payment to APT. However,
petitioners allegedly refused to apply the sum to the payment to APT,
after the finality of the judgment in the case of CCC. Fearful that
nonpayment to APT would result in the foreclosure, of several
properties, CCC filed before the RTC a Complaint with Application
for Preliminary Attachment" against petitioners. The Complaint
prayed, that petitioners be directed to pay the "APT Retained Amount"
referred to in Clause 2 (c) of the SPA. Petitioners moved to dismiss the
Complaint on the ground that it violated the prohibition on forum-
shopping. Respondent CCC had allegedly made the same claim it was
raising in another action, which involved the same parties and which
was filed earlier before the International Chamber of Commerce. After
the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss in its November 14, 2000
Order, petitioners elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals.

In the meantime, to avoid being in default and without prejudice

to the outcome of their appeal, petitioners filed their Answer and
Compulsory Counterclaims ad Cautelam before the trial court. In their
Answer, they denied the allegations in the Complaint. They prayed --
by way of compulsory counterclaims against Respondent CCC, its
majority stockholder and president Gregory T. Lim, and its corporate
secretary Anthony A. Mariano -- for the sums of (a) P2,700,000 each
as actual damages, (b) P100,000,000 each as exemplary damages, (c)
P100,000,000 each as moral damages, and (d) P5,000,000 each as
attorney's fees plus costs of suit.

Petitioners alleged that CCC, through Lim and Mariano, had

filed the "baseless" Complaint and procured the Writ of Attachment in
bad faith. Relying on this Court's pronouncement in Sapugayv. CA,
petitioners prayed that both Lim and Mariano be held "jointly and
solidarily" liable with Respondent CCC. On behalf of Lim and Mariano
who had yet to file any responsive pleading, CCC moved to dismiss
petitioners' compulsory counterclaims on grounds that essentially
constituted the very issues for resolution in the instant Petition.

RTC ruled that the counterclaims of the petitioners against Lim

and Mariano were not compulsory, that the ruling in Sapugay was not
applicable and that the petitioners answer with counterclaims
violated the procedural rules on joinder of actions.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners answer with counterclaims

violated the procedural rules on joinder of actions.

Held:

The procedural rules on joinder of actions were not violated. In

joining Lim and Mariano in the compulsory counterclaim, petitioners
are being consistent with the solidary nature of the liability alleged
therein. The procedural rules are founded on practicality and
convenience.They are meant to discourage duplicity and multiplicity
of suits.