This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-01-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Finding the complaint to be meritorious, the RTC, in a Decision[17] dated May 8, 1990, ordered: (a) DBP to pay Union Bank the sum of P4,019,033.59, representing the amount of the subject rentals (which, again, constitutes 30% of FI's [now FW's] total rental debt), including interest until fully paid; and (b) FW, as third-party defendant, to indemnify DBP, as third-party plaintiff, for its payments of the subject rentals to Union Bank. It ruled that there lies no evidence which would show that DBP's receipt of the rental payments from FW is a condition precedent to the former's obligation to remit the subject rentals under the Lease Agreement. Thus, when DBP failed to remit the subject rentals to Union Bank, it defaulted on its assumed obligations.[18] DBP then elevated the case on appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 35866. | |||||