Case Digest (G.R. No. 200469)
Facts:
Philippine Savings Bank v. Josephine L. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court.On 30 March 2006, petitioner Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) sued respondent Josephine L. Papa in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City (Civil Case No. 90987) for collection of a flexi-loan allegedly evidenced by a promissory note dated 26 July 2005 with a face amount of P207,600.00. PSB alleged default and sought P173,000.00 as of 27 March 2006 plus interest, penalties, attorney’s fees and costs; it introduced a photocopy of the promissory note in evidence. Papa answered on 26 October 2006, denying liability and asserting that staggered payments had extinguished her obligation; she later declined to present evidence at trial and instead filed a memorandum.
On 23 December 2008 the MeTC rendered judgment for PSB ordering Papa to pay P173,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum from 9 February 2006, P20,000 attorney’s fees and costs; the MeTC denied Papa’s reconsideration on 14 May 2009. Papa appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City.
On 14 October 2009 the RTC reversed and set aside the MeTC decision, holding that PSB failed to prove the existence and due execution of the promissory note and that Papa’s Answer did not constitute an admission of the note’s contents. PSB filed a motion for reconsideration on 10 November 2009; Papa opposed, contending that service of PSB’s motion was defective (it was served by private courier and actually received on 11 November 2009) and that the RTC decision had therefore attained finality. On 14 January 2010 the RTC denied PSB’s motion for reconsideration, ruling the RTC decision final.
PSB filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. SP No. 112611). On 21 July 2011 the CA affirmed the RTC’s 14 October 2009 decision and the 14 January 2010 order, holding that PSB failed to perfect its appeal because it did not effect proper proof of service of its motion for reconsideration (service was by private...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing PSB’s appeal on procedural grounds by finding PSB’s motion for reconsideration not properly served and therefore not tolled, thereby prejudicing PSB’s substantive right to recover.
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the lower courts’ finding that PSB failed to prove its cause of action by not presenting the original promissory note.
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ dismissal resulted in ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)