Even assuming that the bank officer or employee whom petitioner claimed
he had talked to regarding the March 22, 1984 letter had acceded to his own
modified terms for the repurchase, their supposed verbal exchange did not bind
respondent bank in view of its corporate nature. There was no evidence that said Mr. Lazaro or
Mr. Fajardo was authorized by respondent bank’s Board of Directors to accept
petitioner’s counter-proposal to repurchase the foreclosed properties at the
price and terms other than those communicated in the March 22, 1984 letter (Heirs of Fausto C. Ignacio Vs. Home
Bankers Savings and Trust co., et al., G.R. No. 177783. January 23,
2013).
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment