- Petitioner
- Spouses Nestor Cabasal
- Respondent
- Bpi Family Savings Bank
- Citation
- G.R. No. 233846
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Division
- First Division
- Ponente
- Zalameda, J.
- Decided
- November 18, 2020
Summary
Spouses Cabasal sued BPI Family Savings Bank and employee Alma De Leon for damages after their real estate sale fell through when the bank refused to allow mortgage assumption. The RTC awarded damages finding bad faith, but the CA reversed, holding no bad faith was proven. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, emphasizing that abuse of rights requires clear proof of bad faith or negligence. The Court found respondent De Leon acted properly in explaining bank policy against mortgage assumptions, and petitioners failed to establish that her statements caused the sale's failure. The foreclosure was upheld as valid since petitioners were already in default. This case reinforces that banking institutions may establish reasonable policies and that damages claims require concrete proof of bad faith, not mere business disappointment.
Intellegal Wiki · Key Holding
Liability for abuse of rights under Article 19 requires bad faith proved by clear and convincing evidence; acting on a legitimate policy — a bank's prohibition on mortgage assumptions — is not an abuse of rights.
An editorially maintained summary of the rule this Supreme Court decision is cited for — not legal advice.