Case Digest (G.R. No. 137264)
Facts:
Eulogio O. Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan, G.R. No. 137264, August 01, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Yutingco and Wong (petitioners) sought review of the Court of Appeals resolutions dated November 9, 1998 and January 13, 1999 which denied their petition for certiorari as filed beyond the reglementary period and likewise denied reconsideration.Private respondent Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a complaint dated November 10, 1997 (Civil Case No. 97-2653) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 146 for collection of a sum of money with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. DBP alleged it granted a P150,000,000 credit line to Nikon Industrial Corporation (Nikon) under a Credit Line Agreement dated December 11, 1996; petitioners, as controlling stockholders, bound themselves as primary obligors under a Continuing Suretyship Agreement, and Nikon executed promissory notes as guarantees. DBP asserted Nikon defaulted on interest and that Nikon and related corporations filed a petition for suspension of payments with the SEC on September 16, 1997, which DBP treated as an event of default under the agreement.
On January 14, 1998 the RTC issued a writ of attachment in favor of DBP. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 11, 1998, arguing failure to state a cause of action, noncompliance with a condition precedent (no extrajudicial demand), and lack of jurisdiction because default remained a factual question. On May 7, 1998 the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, ruling the issue of default was factual and must await trial; a motion for reconsideration was denied on June 29, 1998, the RTC declaring it had jurisdiction because the attached properties were in the defendants’ names and they were sued personally as sureties.
Petitioners received the May 7 order on July 7, 1998. They filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on September 7, 1998 (seeking 15 days until September 22, 1998), and then filed their petition for certiorari on September 22, 1998. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated November 9, 1998, denied the motion for extension and dismissed the petition as filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; its denial of reconsideration followed on January 13, 1999. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court of Appeals have admitted the petition for certiorari as a matter of substantial justice despite its late filing?
- If admitted, does the petition for certiorari meritoriously show lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)