G.R. No. 194128 - Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Francia

On March 27, 2001, Amos P. Francia, Jr., Cecilia Zamora, and Benjamin Francia (the Francias) filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages against Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp) and Pearlbank Securities Inc. (Pearlbank) before the RTC.
Wincorp and Pearlbank separately moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming failure to state a cause of action.
On July 16, 2001, the RTC denied both motions to dismiss for lack of merit.

Wincorp filed an Answer; Pearlbank filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim against Wincorp.
Wincorp’s Motion to Dismiss Pearlbank’s Crossclaim was denied.
At the pre-trial conference on April 17, 2002, the parties stipulated among others: (a) the personal and juridical status of parties; (b) service of demand letter on Pearlbank; (c) plaintiffs had no personal knowledge if Pearlbank borrowed the funds; (d) that the confirmation advices indicating Pearlbank as borrower bore no signature or acknowledgment of Pearlbank.

Amos Francia, Jr. testified to investing P1,420,352.72 and P2,522,745.34 with Wincorp through Westmont Bank in 1999, enticed by promises of higher interest rates (11% net over 43 days).
Upon maturity, Wincorp allegedly rolled-over the investments for 34 more days, issuing Confirmation Advices naming Pearlbank as borrower with matured amounts and due dates of April 13, 2000.
The Francias’ demands for return of investment were frustrated; efforts to settle with Pearlbank failed.
Francias filed a Formal Offer of Evidence; Pearlbank objected, Wincorp did not.

Wincorp sought postponements due to unavailability of witnesses; the RTC denied the motion and deemed Wincorp to have waived right to present evidence.
Pearlbank filed Demurrer to Evidence; RTC granted it, dismissing Pearlbank from the case.

RTC, in its September 27, 2004 Decision, found Wincorp solely liable to pay the Francias P3,984,062.47 plus 11% interest per annum and 10% attorney’s fees.
Wincorp’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Wincorp appealed to the CA which, on July 27, 2010, affirmed with modification: reduced attorney’s fees to P100,000, ordered interest computed from April 13, 2000.
CA denied Wincorp’s motion for reconsideration; Wincorp filed the present petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Wincorp solely liable despite its claim that it was merely an agent and that Pearlbank was the actual borrower and liable party.
Whether the pleadings, evidence, and the legal relationship among the parties support the liability of Wincorp or Pearlbank.
Whether the failure of Wincorp to formally offer certain evidence at trial should bar its consideration on appeal.