Case Digest (G.R. No. 190445)
Facts:
Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. v. Spouses Enrique Gabriel Locsin and Ma. Geraldine R. Locsin, G.R. No. 190445, July 23, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On 29 September 1995, spouses Enrique Gabriel and Ma. Geraldine Locsin obtained a P700,000 loan from Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO) secured by a real estate mortgage on a parcel covered by TCT No. N-138739 (the 1st Loan). The 1st Loan promissory note contained an acceleration clause making the obligation immediately due upon specified defaults. On 6 November 1996 the Locsins obtained a P2.5 million credit line from BDO, secured by third‑party mortgages on the Evidente properties (TCT Nos. N-166336 and N-166637); the credit line approval contained a cross‑default clause making a default under one facility trigger default on the other.
The Locsins defaulted on the credit line in October 1997. On 7 January 1998 BDO sent a demand letter asserting that the 1st Loan likewise became due by virtue of the cross‑default and acceleration clauses. The Locsins sought loan restructuring but failed to pay. On 24 August 1998 the Locsins filed Civil Case No. Q-98-35337 in the RTC, Branch 223, Quezon City, for Specific Performance, Tort and Damages and sought to enjoin foreclosure; the trial court denied injunctive relief. Consequently, BDO extrajudicially foreclosed the Evidente properties and the 1st Loan property on 23 September 1998; BDO was the highest bidder at P3,879,406.80. The Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale reflected the total outstanding indebtedness at P3,460,363.97. On 5 February 1999 BDO demanded an alleged deficiency, initially stated as P1,259,166.21 but elsewhere shown as P1,144,089.84 in BDO’s Bid Statement.
On 29 November 1999 BDO filed an action for Collection of a Sum of Money in the RTC of Mandaluyong seeking recovery of P1,144,089.84 as deficiency. Instead of answering, the Locsins filed a Motion to Dismiss (21 February 2000) arguing that BDO’s claim should have been raised as a compulsory counterclaim in their earlier Civil Case No. Q‑98‑35337. The trial court denied the motion on 18 September 2000; the Locsins sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals and prevailed there, but the Supreme Court later reversed the CA and ordered remand and continuance; that Supreme Court decision became final on 19 December 2005.
After remand the Locsins failed to answer. BDO asked the RTC to reinstate the case and to allow ex parte presentation of evidence (28 April 2006); the RTC granted this and allowed ex parte proof on 9 October 2006. BDO presented a Statement of Account showing the alleged deficiency had ballooned to P3,709,961.00 by 24 November 2006, but the preparers of that statement were not produced to authenticate it; only BDO’s Vice‑President, Agnes C. Tuason, testified. On 20 February 2007 the RTC rendered judgment for BDO for Php3,709,961.00 plus 12% per annum and attorney’s fees.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated 30 June 2009, reversed the RTC, finding BDO failed to prove its claim by a preponderance of evidence and dismissing the complaint. The CA also denied BDO’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 28 October 2009. BDO then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 be...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave and reversible error in deciding an issue not assigned as error by respondents (i.e., the sufficiency of petitioner’s proof)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioner BDO failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence its entitlement to recover the alleged deficiency of P3,709,961.00?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to dismiss respondents’ appeal for noncompliance with Section 7 and Section 13(d) and (e) of Rule 44 of the Rules of Cou...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)