Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18443)
Facts:
In Romeo C. Garcia vs. Dionisio V. Llamas (G.R. No. 154127, December 8, 2003), respondent Dionisio V. Llamas extended a ₱400,000 loan to co-debtors Romeo C. Garcia (petitioner) and Eduardo de Jesus on December 23, 1996 in Quezon City. The parties executed a promissory note stipulating joint and solidary liability, payable by January 23, 1997 with 5% monthly interest. The debt remained unpaid despite a May 2, 1997 demand letter, prompting Llamas to file Civil Case No. Q97-32-873 for recovery of principal, interest, attorney’s fees, and damages. Petitioner answered that he had signed only as an accommodation party and that de Jesus “paid” the debt by issuing a check dated April 17, 1997 and paying ₱120,000 interest, which he argued novated the note. De Jesus counterclaimed, asserting partial receipt of the loan, interest prepayments via retirement benefits, and bad faith by Llamas. Neither co-debtor filed a pre-trial brief or presented evidence; the trial court granted judgment onCase Digest (G.R. No. L-18443)
Facts:
- Antecedents
- On December 23, 1996, petitioners Romeo C. Garcia and Eduardo de Jesus executed a promissory note in favor of Dionisio V. Llamas for ₱400,000, payable on or before January 23, 1997, with 5% monthly interest and joint and solidary liability. A demand letter dated May 2, 1997, was also sent.
- Garcia answered, claiming he signed only as accommodation party and that de Jesus paid via a ₱400,000 check which, upon acceptance, novated the obligation; alternatively, he claimed de Jesus’s check discharged the debt. Llamas replied that the check bounced. De Jesus answered with counterclaims regarding interest and contested amount disbursed, claiming extension of term.
- Procedural History
- During pretrial, de Jesus and Garcia failed to file briefs or present evidence. RTC Branch 222 allowed Llamas to present ex parte evidence against de Jesus and directed Llamas to move for judgment on pleadings vs. Garcia. Garcia submitted defense on pleadings.
- On July 7, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment on the pleadings, ordering Garcia and de Jesus, jointly and severally, to pay:
- ₱400,000 principal plus 5% monthly interest from January 23, 1997, less ₱120,000 paid interests;
- ₱100,000 attorney’s fees and ₱2,000 per court appearance;
- Costs of suit.
- On appeal (CA-GR CV No. 60521), the Court of Appeals affirmed as to Garcia (deleting attorney’s fees and costs), set aside the portion against de Jesus, and remanded for ex parte evidence reception. The CA denied reconsideration.
- Garcia filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the CA Decision and Resolution.
Issues:
- Whether a novation occurred that substituted de Jesus as sole debtor or replaced the promissory note by the bounced check.
- Whether Garcia’s defense as mere accommodation party is tenable notwithstanding the note’s express joint and solidary liability.
- Whether the RTC’s judgment on the pleadings or as summary judgment was proper given alleged genuine issues of fact.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)