A COMMERCIAL bank in Cebu City has sued Cebu City congressional candidate Jonathan Guardo and his wife Clarissa over an unsettled car loan of P1.1 million they took out last year.
The Bank of the Philippine Island (BPI) Family Savings Bank Inc. filed before the Regional Trial Court a civil suit for recovery of personal property against the couple and an unidentified person for failing to pay P1,121,110.38 that they had borrowed to buy a vehicle.
Sought for comment, Guardo’s lawyer Alvin Butch Cañares said the car is owned by Clarissa who uses it for her real estate business.
“There were disagreements between Mrs. Guardo and her partners over the updating of their monthly amortization, causing the delay in keeping current their payments,” Cañares told Sun.Star Cebu by text.
“It has nothing to do with the business of Mr. Guardo and should not be used for political purposes,” Cañares said.
Guardo believes the suit is politically motivated.
Likewise by text, the congressional candidate for Cebu City’s south district said whoever is behind the suit should spare his wife because she is not running for public office.
Cañares said Clarissa and the bank have agreed on a compromise. He said the bank will not likely pursue the case once the court approves the agreement.
Guardo, through his public relations officer Jonji Gonzales, said, “I hope my opponent, in his desperation because of his failing campaign and even health, will keep his hands off my wife who is not running for public office.”
He was referring to Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmena, his rival for the House seat.
BPI, represented by lawyer Ismael Trinidad Jr., said the couple availed themselves of a loan of P1,521,396 on Feb. 23, 2009 to buy a Kia Carnival from Gateway Motors Inc.
The couple agreed to pay a monthly installment of P42,261 starting March 26, 2009 but missed their obligations for Dec. 26, 2009 and March 26, 2010.
Under the terms of the promissory note the couple executed, all monthly installments have become due with a total of P1,121,110.38. The sum excludes lawyer’s fee, liquidation and actual damages.
BPI had demanded payments from the couple but had been ignored.
In their promisory note, the couple agreed that in the event of legal action, they will pay liquidation damages equivalent to 15 percent and attorney’s fee equal to 25 percent, computed based on the outstanding balance of P1,121,110.38, including P67,266.62 as reimbursement of premium on replevin.
BPI asked the court to order the seizure of the vehicle worth P1,107,555.16 and the couple to pay the bank P168,166.56 as liquidation damages, P280,277.60 as attorney’s fees, P15,000 as re-possession expenses, and P67,266.62 as reimbursement of premium on replevin bond and costs. (GMD with PDF)