This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Ramos v. Central Bank of the Philippines,[111] this Court berated the government for reneging on its representations and urged it to keep its word, viz: Even in the absence of contract, the record plainly shows that the CB [Central Bank] made express representations to petitioners herein that it would support the OBM [Overseas Bank of Manila], and avoid its liquidation if the petitioners would execute (a) the Voting Trust Agreement turning over the management of OBM to the CB or its nominees, and (b) mortgage or assign their properties to the Central Bank to cover the overdraft balance of OBM. The petitioners having complied with these conditions and parted with value to the profit of the CB (which thus acquired additional security for its own advances), the CB may not now renege on its representations and liquidate the OBM, to the detriment of its stockholders, depositors and other creditors, under the rule of promissory estoppel (19 Am. Jur., pages 657-658; 28 Am. Jur. 2d, 656-657; Ed. Note, 115 ALR, 157). | |||||