GR No. 259282
GR No. 259282
GR No. 259282
•$Upreme ([ourt
iff[anila
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
INTING, J.:
1
Rollo, pp. 3-26.
2
Id. at 60-73. Penned by Associate Justice Bonifacio S. Pascua and concurred in by Associate
Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court).
CA rollo, pp. 3-14.
07
Decision 2 G.R. No. 259282
Decision 4 dated September 18, 201 7, of Branch 62, Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Makati City, in Civil Case No. 02-683.
The Antecedents
Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) granted several loans
to petitioners-the details 7 of which are as follows:
against petitioners for the alleged deficiency in their loan obligation, viz.:
xxxx
xxxx
(JI
Decision 4 G.R. No. 259282
PRAYER
In sum, BPI alleged that petitioners failed to pay their loans upon
maturity, and thus, FEBTC extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate
mortgage over TCT No. 13062 on November 10, 1997, in the amount of
P4,000.00 in favor of FEBTC as the lone bidder; and that the real estate
mortgage over TCT No. 40223 was likewise foreclosed on April 23, 2001,
in the amount of P2,603,405.00 in favor ofBPI. 15
The RTC issued an undated summons, but the summons was lost.
Hence, it issued an alias summons on November 30, 2004. The alias
summons was personally served upon petitioners through Monette Prieto
on February 11, 2005. The records were temporarily sent to the archives
but was subsequently reinstated into the active docket upon BPI's
request. 16
14
Id. at 29-31.
15
Rollo, pp. 61-62.
16 ld. at 50-51.
17
Id.at51.
is Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 259282
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 51-52.
22
CA rollo, pp. 85-94.
23
Rollo, pp. 51-52.
of}
Decision 6 G.R. No. 259282
The RTC stressed that the Complaint was not for the whole
indebtedness but only for the unsatisfied portion thereof; hence, the
amount of the obligation prior to foreclosure and the proceeds of the
foreclosure are material in the case. It noted, however, that there was no
evidence offered to support the allegations in the Complaint that
petitioners' loan obligation still had an unsatisfied portion after their
mortgaged properties were auctioned. 27
24
CA rollo, pp. 87-91.
25
Rollo, pp. 56-59.
26
Id. at 59.
27 Id.
28
CArollo, pp. 135-147.
fll
Decision 7 G.R. No. 259282
aside its Decision dated August 3, 2017 "in the interest of substantial
justice" 29 and attached certified true copies of the Real Estate Mortgage 30
over TCT No. 13062 dated June 15, 1995, Certificate of Sale of Real
Property 31 over TCTNo. 13062 dated November 10, 1997, and Certificate
of Absolute Definitive Deed of Sale 32 over TCT No. 40223 dated October
22, 2010 (collectively, subject documents).
In the Order38 dated September 18, 2017, the RTC granted SPY-
AMC, Inc. 's Motion for Reconsideration; thus:
29
Id.at146.
30 Id. at l 53-154.
31
ld.atl49-150.
32
Id. at 151-152.
33 Id. at 137-138, 145.
34
Id. at 138.
3s Id.
36 Id. at 141, citing the case of Otero v. Tan, 692 Phil. 714 (2012).
37 Id. at 144.
38
Rollo, p. 49.
39 Id.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 259282
On even date, the RTC issued its second Decision and held that (1)
petitioners were extended loans in the amount of P5,200,000.00, plus
interest and other charges which were secured by real estate mortgages on
their properties; (2) t~ey defaulted on their loan obligation amounting to
Pl 4,787,405.40, excluding filing fees of P26, 705 .00, publication fees of
Pl2,000.00, and attorneys' fees of P3,696,85 l.35; (3) the extrajudicial
foreclosure sales of petitioners' properties yielded the sum of
P2,603,465.00; and (4) petitioners' outstanding obligation after applying
the bid price was Pl3,268,303.02. 40
40
Id. at 53-54.
41
Id. at 50-54.
42
Id. at 54.
43
Id. at 66.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 259282
The CA Ruling
Issues
44
CA rolfo, pp. 3-13.
45
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
46
Rollo, pp. 60- 73.
47
Id. at 69-71.
48
Id. at 27-28.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 259282
Petitioners' Arguments
Anent the first substantive issue, quoting the RTC Order dated
September 18, 2017, petitioners maintain that the RTC based its Decision
dated September 18, 2017, on the subject documents in violation of
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. To their mind, newly
discovered evidence, if any, can be considered upon a granting of a motion
for new trial pursuant to Section 1, Rule 3 7 of the Rules of Court, but not
in a motion for reconsideration. 50
49
Id.at 19.
50
Id. at 9-10.
51
Id. at 15-17.
52
Id. at 195-204.
53
759 Phil. 82 (2015).
54
Rollo, p. 200.
ull
Decision 11 G.R. No. 259282
Our Ruling
In the case at bar, petitioners are asking the Court to rule on whether
the CA erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari outright on the
grounds that they availed themselves of the wrong remedy and failed to
comply with the mandatory requirement of a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners, contend, however, that a motion for reconsideration was not
necessary in the case because the assailed RTC decision was a patent
nullity for failure to comply with Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court and in violation of their right to due process.
Nonetheless, the Court gives due course to the present petition and
rules on the substantive issues raised by petitioners in view of the merits
of the case. In numerous cases, the Court has exercised its equity
jurisdiction and allowed meritorious cases to proceed despite the
litigant's procedural lapses in the broader interest of substantial justice.
xxxx
We find that petitioner's case fits more the exception rather than
the general rule. Taking into account the importance of the issues raised
in the Petition, and what petitioner stands to lose, the Court of Appeals
should have given due course to the said Petition and treated it as a
petition for review. By dismissing the Petition outright, the Court of
Appeals absolutely foreclosed the resolution of the issues raised
therein. Indubitably, justice would have been better served if the Court
of Appeals resolved the issues that were raised in the Petition. 58
(Citations omitted; underscoring supplied)
58
Id. at 488-489.
59 G .R. Nos. 206486, 212604, 212682 & 212800, August 16, 2022.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 259282
filing a petition for certiorari. It is well settled that the proper remedy
to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final orders, or
resolutions, is an appeal. While the petition attributes grave abuse of
discretion on the part of Hon. Antonio M. Esteves as judge, this Court,
in Chua v. People, nevertheless instructs that an appeal should still be
sought as a recourse "even if the error ascribed to the court rendering
the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the
exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the
findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution."
As emphasized in Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the
Court of Appeals, "where an appeal is available, certiorari will not
prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion."
60 Id.
61
482 Phil. 903 (2004).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 259282
To recall, the case was archived on April 25, 2006, upon motion
of SPV-AMC, in order to give the latter more time to collate evidence.
It must be noted, however, that SPV-AMC's reason for the archiving
of the case is not one of the instances wherein a civil case may be
archived as provided under OCA Circular No. 89-04, 64 viz.:
62
Id. at 914-915.
63 Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, supra note 57, at 489.
64 Reiteration of the Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases, approved on August 12, 2004.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 259282
period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The case shall be included in the
trial calendar on the day immediately following the lapse of the
suspension period.
Interestingly, the case was archived for more than 10 years when
the R TC ordered its dismissal on December 19, 2016, for lack of interest
to prosecute. However, on SPV-AMC's motion for reconsideration, the
RTC reversed its order of dismissal and thereafter admitted SPV-AMC,
Inc. 's Formal Offer of Evidence on May 4, 2017.
65
Rollo, p. 52.
66
Id. at 16.
(fl
Decision 16 G.R. No. 259282
stated that the subject property was sold for P4,000.00 only. 67 Notably,
SPY-AMC, Inc. neither presented the relevant bid documents nor
presented any witness who can shed light on this discrepancy.
67
CA rollo, pp. 176-177.
68
See Campos v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 785 Phil. 853,862 (2016).
f)1
Decision 17 G.R. No. 259282
72
See CA rolfo, pp. 36-49.
73
Rollo, p. 34.
74
Id. at 36.
f/7
Decision 19 G.R. No. 259282
RULE37
New Trial or Reconsiderations
xxxx
Verily, SPV-AMC, Inc. 's mistake as to the nature of its motion was
fatal to its case.
ff)
Decision 20 G.R. No. 259282
75
See last paragraph of Rules of Court, Rule 37, Section 2.
76
In Pillars Property Corp. v. Century Communities Corp., 848 Phil. 187 (2019), the Court held that
an order dismissing an action without prejudice is reviewable via petition for certiorari.
77
See Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 1.
78
Otero v. Tan, supra note 36, at 729.
79
See Desca!lar v. Heirs of Guevara, G.R. No. 243874, October 6, 2021. Italics supplied.
80
483 Phil. 292 (2004).
81
Id.at301-302.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 259282
Given the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that
the R TC gravely abused its discretion when it awarded the alleged
deficiency claim of Pl3,268,303.02 as prayed for in the Complaint.
From the foregoing, the RTC aptly dismissed the Complaint in its
Decision dated August 3, 2017. Considering that the evidence formally
offered by SPY-AMC, Inc. was insufficient to justify a judgment in its
82 See Philippine National Bank v. Spou~es Rocamora, 616 Phil. 369, 379 (2009).
83
Supra.
84
Id. at 379.
85
See Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 259282
86
See Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1144.
M'
Decision 23 G.R. No. 259282
Considering that the case had already been archived for more than
10 years, the Court rules that the RTC's order of dismissal without
prejudice after trial on the merits is a violation of petitioners' right to
speedy disposition of their case, and thus, cannot be sanctioned by the
Court. More, there will be no end to litigation and the courts' dockets
would be clogged if plaintiffs who, by their own fault, failed to
substantiate their claims after trial on the merits would be allowed to
re-file their case to the prejudice of the defendant.
SO ORDERED.
HEN
87 3A Apparel Corp. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 642 Phil. 732, 736 (20 I 0).
Decision 24 G.R. No. 259282
WE CONCUR:
. CAGUIOA
~U--~AN AO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the ove Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was as gned he writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.
AL S. CAGUIOA
·ce
Division
fl
I
Decision 25 G.R. No. 259282
CERTIFICATION