Case Summary (G.R. No. 214497)
Nature of the Case
The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of a writ of execution issued by the lower court. This writ was issued to enforce a final judgment favoring RCBC in a collection suit against MRDC, following MRDC's failure to meet its obligations under the loan agreement secured by promissory notes and real estate mortgages.
Loan and Security Details
On February 2, 1977, MRDC entered into an export financing loan agreement with RCBC for ₱500,000, due within 148 days with an interest rate of 14% annually. The agreement stipulated that liquidated damages of 6% and attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the defaulted amount would be applicable. To secure the loan, real estate mortgages were executed by Luis F. Garcia and Soledad F. Garcia on various properties, alongside a surety bond issued by FIBIC and a comprehensive surety agreement executed by several individuals.
Default and Legal Proceedings
MRDC failed to pay as agreed, leading RCBC to file a collection lawsuit (Civil Case No. 30878) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The Bank alleged that as of January 30, 1978, MRDC owed ₱559,438.68. After extrajudicial foreclosure, a deficiency remained amounting to ₱390,069.18. In response, MRDC and FIBIC claimed the loan was usurious and argued for the nullity of the mortgage and surety arrangements.
Trial Court’s Judgment
The trial court ruled in favor of RCBC on August 20, 1979, ordering MRDC and its co-defendants to pay a total of ₱477,305.34 with interests, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees. Petitioner motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the trial court's decision, leading to a petition for review to the Supreme Court that was denied.
Issuance of Writ of Execution
Subsequent to the Supreme Court's ruling, a writ of execution was issued by the lower court on January 22, 1985. Petitioners filed a motion to quash the writ, claiming they had already paid part of the original loan. However, the respondent judge denied their motions, asserting that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the prior court decisions.
Arguments Raised by Petitioners
In their petition, the petitioners contended that they should be allowed to present evidence of payment during the execution of the judgment, relying on the precedent set in Naga Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. They argued that the inability to submit their proof of payment was unjust and fundamental to the enforcement of their rights.
Bank's Counterarguments
RCBC countered that since the judgment was final and executory, it could not be altered. They pointed out the factual differences between this case and the Naga case, emphasizing the finality of the judgment. The Bank also
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 214497)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary injunction filed by First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Company, Inc. and Marian Realty & Development Corporation against Hon. Asaali S. Isnani, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, and others.
- The petitioners sought to stop the implementation of a writ of execution issued by the lower court to satisfy a final judgment in favor of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC).
Background of the Case
- On February 2, 1977, Marian Realty & Development Corporation (MRDC) secured a P500,000 export financing loan from RCBC, evidenced by a promissory note due 148 days later, with a 14% annual interest rate.
- The loan agreement included terms for liquidated damages (6%) and attorney's fees (10%) in case of default.
- A real estate mortgage was executed by Luis F. Garcia and Soledad F. Garcia as security for the loan, and a surety bond was provided by First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. (FIBIC).
- Additional sureties included Marcelino Agana, Jr., Antonio V. Agcaoili, and Ramiro F. Garcia, who agreed to pay the loan upon maturity.