100%(7)7 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 135 pages.
Granting that petitioner was bound under such arrangement to accept the late delivery of theequipment, we note its unexplained inaction for almost four years with regard to the status of the ownershipor possession of the loaders. Bewildering was its lack of action to validate the ownership and possession ofthe loaders, as well as its stolidity over the purported failed sales transaction. Significant too is the fact that itformalized its offer to return the two pieces of equipment only after respondents demand for payment, whichcame more than three years after it accepted delivery.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________RAMON L. ABAD v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS & THE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANKG.R. No.L-42735, January 22, 1990, Grino-Aquino, J.The marginal deposit requirement for letters of credit has been discontinued, except in those caseswhere the applicant for a letter of credit is not known to the bank or does not maintain a good credit standingtherein.Facts:TOMCO, Inc., now known as Southeast Timber Co. (Phils.), Inc., applied for, and was granted by thePhilippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), a domestic letter of credit for P 80,000 in favor of OregonIndustries, Inc., to pay for one Skagit Yarder with accessories. PCIB paid to Oregon Industries the cost of themachinery with recourse, presentment and notice of dishonor waived, and with date of maturity on January 4,1964.17 | P a g e
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWSAfter making the required marginal deposit of P28,000 on November 5, 1963, TOMCO, Inc. signed anddelivered to the bank a trust receipt acknowledging receipt of the merchandise in trust for the bank. Inconsideration of the release to TOMCO, Inc. by PCIB of the machinery covered by the trust receipt, petitionerRamon Abad signed an undertaking entitled, "Deed of Continuing Guaranty" appearing on the back of thetrust receipt, whereby he promised to pay the obligation jointly and severally with TOMCO, Inc.Except forTOMCO's P28,000 marginal deposit in the bank, no payment has been made to PCIB by either TOMCO, Inc. orits surety, Abad, on the P80,000 letter of credit.The bank sued TOMCO, Inc. and Abad. TOMCO did not deny its liability to PCIB under the letter ofcredit but it alleged that inasmuch as it made a marginal deposit of P28,000, this amount should have beendeducted from its principal obligation.The trial court rendered judgment in favor of PCIB, which was affirmedby CA.Issue:Whether or not the debtor (or its surety) is entitled to deduct the debtor's cash marginal depositfrom the principal obligation under a letter of credit and to have the interest charges computed only on thebalance of the said obligation.Ruling:YES.It is only fair then that the importer's marginal deposit (if one was made, as in this case), shouldbe set off against his debt, for while the importer earns no interest on his marginal deposit, the bank, apartfrom being able to use said deposit for its own purposes, also earns interest on the money it loaned to theimporter. It would be onerous to compute interest and other charges on the face value of the letter of credit