463 Diona V Balangue
463 Diona V Balangue
463 Diona V Balangue
Review & Correction by Another Court in an Independent Action| Jan 07, 2013 | Del Castillo, J.
SUMMARY: Respondents failed to pay their obligation to the petitioner. They were declared in
default after their failure to file any responsive pleadings, and the RTC granted the petitioner’s
complaint. Later, the RTC imposed a monthly interest rate of 5%, which was not agreed upon by
the parties. SC ruled that the interest rate violated their right to due process.
DOCTRINE: While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment.
It is settled that courts cannot grant relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is
being sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief without first ascertaining the evidence
presented in support thereof. Due process considerations require that judgments must conform
to and be supported by the pleadings and evidence
presented in court.
● March 2, 1991 - Balangue et al obtained a loan of P45,000.00 from Diona payable in six
months and secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over their 202-square meter property
located in Marulas, Valenzuela
o They were unable to pay when the debt became due and demandable.
● Sept 17, 1999 - Diona filed a complaint with the RTC. Respondents were served with
summons thru Sonny Balangue.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
MTC/RTC ● Oct 15, 1999 - with the assistance of Atty. Coroza (PAO),
the respondents filed a Motion to Extend Period to
Answer. Despite the requested extension, respondents
failed to file any responsive pleadings.
○ Thus, upon motion of the petitioner, the RTC
declared them in default and allowed the
petitioner to present her evidence ex parte.
● RTC granted the complaint.
● Later, Diona filed a Motion for Execution, alleging that
respondents did not interpose a timely appeal despite
receipt by their former counsel of the RTC’s Decision.
● Before it could be resolved, respondents filed a Motion to
Set Aside Judgment (Jan 26, 2001), claiming that not all
of them were duly served with summons.
○ According to the other respondents, they had no
knowledge of the case because their co-
respondent Sonny did not inform them about it.
● March 16, 2001 - the issuance of a Writ of Execution to
implement its Oct 17, 2000 Decision.
○ However, since the writ could not be satisfied, the
petitioner moved for the public auction of the
mortgaged property, which the RTC granted.
● Respondents filed a Motion to Correct/Amend Judgment
and To Set Aside Execution Sale, claiming that the
parties did not agree in writing on any rate of interest and
that the petitioner merely sought for a 12% per annum
interest in her Complaint.
● Surprisingly, the RTC awarded 5% monthly interest (or
60% per annum) from March 2, 1991 until full payment.
Court of Appeals ● Displeased with the RTC’s Order, petitioner elevated the
matter to the CA (Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65).
● Aug 5, 2003 - the CA decision: declaring that the RTC
exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the 5% monthly
interest but at the same time pronouncing that the RTC
gravely abused its discretion in subsequently reducing
the rate of interest to 12% per annum.
● Taking their cue from the Decision of the CA in the
special civil action for certiorari, respondents filed with
the same court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and
Execution Sale with Damages. They contended that the
portion of the RTC Decision granting petitioner 5%
monthly interest rate is in gross violation of Section 3(d)
of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and of their right to due
Process.
● CA: Aside from being unconscionably excessive, the
monthly interest rate of 5% was not agreed upon by the
parties and that petitioner’s Complaint clearly sought only
the legal rate of 12% per annum.