Case Digest (G.R. No. 128538)
Facts:
SCC Chemicals Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128538, February 28, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from a loan transaction: on December 13, 1983, SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC), through its chairman Danilo Arrieta and vice‑president Pablito Bermundo, obtained a loan of P129,824.48 from State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI). The promissory note provided for 30% annual interest and 2% monthly penalty charges for non‑payment after the due date of January 12, 1984. To secure payment, Danilo Arrieta and private respondent Leopoldo Halili executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally.
SCC failed to pay at maturity. SIHI sent demand letters (SIHI’s demand letter dated April 4, 1984 was acknowledged in the pre‑trial stipulation), and when no payment followed SIHI filed Civil Case No. 84‑25881 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on August 2, 1984, for sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment. SCC answered, denying cause of action and asserting lack of consideration for the promissory note.
At pre‑trial the parties stipulated, among other things, that the RTC had jurisdiction, that SCC received SIHI’s April 4, 1984 demand letter and statement of account, and that SCC (through Arrieta and Bermundo) executed the December 13, 1983 promissory note for P129,824.48 with maturity January 12, 1984. Trial thereafter focused on liability and extent of damages. SIHI presented one witness; SCC repeatedly failed to appear to cross‑examine despite notice, and the trial court declared SCC to have waived its right to cross‑examine and deemed the case submitted.
On March 22, 1993 the RTC (Branch 33) rendered judgment in favor of SIHI ordering defendants to pay P150,483.16 with interest at 30% per annum from April 1984, and awarding attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due plus costs. SCC appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 45742). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on November 12, 1996 and denied SCC’s motion for reconsideration on February 27, 1997.
SCC then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, advancing two assignments of error: (1) that SIHI failed to prove its cause of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that SIHI proved its cause of action by preponderant evidence?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the trial court’s award of attorney’s fee...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)