G.R. No. 194515 - SPOUSES OSCAR AND GINA GIRONELLA, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of [petitioners] Oscar Gironella and Gina F. Gironella and against [respondent] Philippine National Bank, as follows: 1. On the first and third causes of action, judgment is rendered ordering [PNB] to pay [the Spouses Gironella], the following: a) P5,000,000.00 and P100,000.00 a month as actual and compensatory damages; b) P2,000,000.00 as moral damages; c) P500,000.00 as and for Attorney's fees, plus P10,000.00 for every conference or hearing as Appearance Fees; and d) P250,000.00 as litigation expenses. 2. On the second cause of action, the [c]ourt declares the restructuring of the subject loan pursuant to the letter of [PNB] dated January 25, 2000, Exhibit U for [the Spouses Gironella], and Exhibit 2 for [PNB], and [the Spouses Gironella's] letter dated February 7, 2000, Exhibit V for the [Spouses Gironella], and Exhibit 3 for [PNB], as perfected and binding upon the parties. [PNB] is ordered to pay the costs of suit. [5] On Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by the Spouses Gironella, the RTC clarified that the payment of Php100,000.00 a month as actual and compensatory damages is reckoned from the filing of the Amended Complaint on 25 September 2002. In addition, the RTC declared permanent the writ of preliminary injunction it had previously issued, effectively enjoining the enforcement of the original credit agreements and the accessory contract, the real estate mortgage over the land covered by TCT No. 56059. Posthaste, PNB appealed to the CA questioning the trial court's ruling. PNB argued that the exchange of correspondence between the parties, specifically the 25 January 2000 and 7 February 2000 letters, did not constitute a perfected and binding restructuring agreement since there was no express acceptance by either party of the other's counter-offer. PNB averred that it, in fact, finally rejected the restructuring proposal of the Spouses Gironella on 8 March 2000. The appellate court granted the appeal of PNB and reversed the ruling of the trial court. The CA ruled that the Spouses Gironella, apart from their bare allegations, failed to present evidence required in civil cases, i.e. by a preponderance of evidence, to establish their claim that PNB fraudulently and in gross negligence and/or, in abuse of right, gave them false hopes and assurances that their third loan would be approved in violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code thereby entitling them to damages. The appellate court ruled, thus: In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. Aside from the surmises of [the Spouses Gironella] that they were given false hope and assurances by [PNB's] officers, the [Spouses Gironella] in this case failed to show proof preponderant enough to sway this [c]ourt in their favor. As compared to the other transactions and negotiation entered into between the parties herein which were very much documented, the [Spou