Case Digest (G.R. No. 173331)
Facts:
Florplina Benavidez v. Nestor Salvador, G.R. No. 173331, December 11, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.In February 1998 petitioner Florplina Benavidez negotiated with respondent Nestor Salvador for a loan to repurchase her foreclosed property in Tanay, Rizal. To secure the loan she executed a promissory note (dated March 11, 1998) and other instruments; Salvador issued a manager’s check for P1,000,000.00 and released P500,000.00 in cash (totaling P1,500,000.00). Benavidez was also required to provide a special power of attorney executed by her daughter to effect the security arrangement, but she failed to deliver that SPA.
Benavidez defaulted on the promissory note; postdated checks she issued for interest were dishonored. Salvador sent a demand letter with a statement of account on January 11, 2000 and then filed a complaint for sum of money with damages and a prayer for preliminary attachment in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City (RTC‑Antipolo). Benavidez moved to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia, asserting she had earlier filed a Complaint for Collection, Annulment of Contract and Checks with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and TRO in RTC‑Morong against Salvador and others. RTC‑Antipolo denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for pre‑trial.
At pre‑trial on May 2, 2001, Benavidez and her counsel failed to appear despite due notice; the trial court allowed Salvador to present evidence ex parte. On June 1, 2001, RTC‑Antipolo rendered judgment in favor of Salvador, finding the indebtedness had grown to P4,810,703.21 as of January 11, 2000, and awarded that sum, P50,000 exemplary damages, 25% attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court denied Benavidez’s motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2001.
Benavidez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, by Decision dated November 22, 2005, affirmed RTC‑Antipolo, holding that (a) litis pendentia was not established, and (b) Benavidez’s and her counsel’s unexplained absence justified allowing Salvador to present evidence ex parte. After Benavidez’s motion for reconsideration, the CA issued an Amended Decision on June 8, 2006 deleting the awards of exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees for lack of justification, but otherwise affirming. Benavidez filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, raising (inter alia) litis pendentia/forum‑shopping, the supposed defect in Salvador’s certification against forum shopping, the alleged unconscionability of the promissory note (interest), and the propriety of permitting ex parte proof after her failure to appear at pre‑trial.
Issues:
- Is the action before RTC‑Antipolo barred by Civil Case No. 00‑05660 pending before RTC‑Morong on the ground of litis pendentia (and, relatedly, forum shopping)?
- Was Salvador’s certification against forum shopping defective so as to warrant dismissal?
- Is the promissory note void for being unconscionable and shocking to the conscience (particularly the 5% per month interest stipulation)?
- Did the trial court err in allowing Salvador to present evidence ex parte and to render judgment despite Benavidez’s absence at pre‑trial?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)