Facts:

The case involves the Asian Trading Corporation, Miguel L. Romero, and Edcel C. Lagman as petitioners against the Philippine Banking Corporation and the Court of Appeals as respondents. It originated from a complaint filed by the Philippine Banking Corporation (the Bank) on November 25, 1983, for the collection of ₱2,700,000.00, plus interest and attorney's fees, against the petitioners. The complaint was based on a promissory note executed by the petitioners on July 9, 1982, which stipulated a due date of August 9, 1984, for the principal amount. The note contained an acceleration clause, stating that upon the default of payment of any installment, the entire principal would become due and demandable at the Bank's option. The Bank claimed that since the petitioners failed to pay the first two installments due on January 9, 1983, and July 9, 1983, the full amount was now due.

In their response, the petitioners argued that the complaint was premature, as the due date of

...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Asian Trading Corporation, Miguel L. Romero, and Edcel C. Lagman.
   • Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals (Eighth Division) and Philippine Banking Corporation (Bank).

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The Bank filed a complaint against the petitioners for the collection of P2,700,000.00 plus interest and attorney's fees, based on a promissory note executed by the petitioners on July 9, 1982.

3. Terms of the Promissory Note:

   • Date of Promissory Note: July 9, 1982.
   • Due Date: August 9, 1984.
   • Terms of Payment: Principal payable semi-annually, interest payable quarterly.
   • Acceleration Clause: The entire principal becomes due and demandable upon default of any installment or other obligations.
   • Attorney's Fees: 25% of the total amount due in case of suit.

4. Bank's Claim:

   • The Bank alleged that the petitioners failed to pay the first and second installments due on January 9, 1983, and July 9, 1983, respectively, triggering the acceleration clause.

5. Petitioners' Defense:

   • Petitioners argued that the obligation was not yet due and demandable, as the due date was August 9, 1984, and the complaint was premature.

6. Trial Court's Decision:

   • The trial court denied the petitioners' demurrer to evidence and ruled in favor of the Bank.

7. Court of Appeals' Decision:

   • The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari, holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

8. Compromise Agreement:

   • The parties attempted to settle the case through a compromise agreement, but disputes arose over attorney's fees, leading to the reinstatement of the petition.

Issue:

1. Procedural Issue:

   • Whether the petitioners' remedy of certiorari was proper, given that they could have appealed the trial court's decision.

2. Substantive Issue:

   • Whether the petitioners were deprived of their right to present evidence, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering such presentation as an "empty formality."

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment and that the petitioners' right to present evidence was not violated under the circumstances. The petition was denied, and no costs were awarded.