Title
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Fadcor, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 197970
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2016
Metrobank sued Fadcor, Inc. and its officers for loan default; RTC ruled in favor of Metrobank after ex parte hearing due to respondents' non-appearance. CA reversed, but SC reinstated RTC's decision, affirming proper evidence admission and recovery of deficiency.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197970)

Loans and Mortgages

Metrobank extended five loans totaling P32,950,000.00 to Fadcor, with the loans backed by two Real Estate Mortgages encompassing ten parcels of land. The loans were executed through various key individuals in Fadcor, including its President and Executive Vice-President. In addition to the mortgages, the respondents also executed Continuing Surety Agreements, thereby assuming joint and several liabilities for any future obligations to Metrobank.

Default and Foreclosure

The failure of the respondents to amortize their loan payments, amounting to P32,350,594.12 in arrears, led Metrobank to initiate an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. The properties were sold at a public auction to Metrobank itself, resulting in a Certificate of Sale. Despite this foreclosure and the sale, a deficiency obligation of P17,479,371.86 remained unpaid, which prompted Metrobank to file a complaint for recovery of this amount.

Judicial Proceedings

After respondents failed to respond or appear for a scheduled pre-trial, Metrobank was granted the opportunity to present its case ex parte. Metrobank's lone witness presented evidence regarding the loan obligations, leading to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling in favor of Metrobank and awarding the deficiency amount plus interest and attorney's fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The respondents' appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) led to a reversal of the RTC's decision. The CA identified errors in the RTC’s admission of various pieces of evidence that were allegedly not properly presented by Metrobank during the ex parte hearing. The CA's decision also cited the applicable guidelines that restricted the admission of evidence not previously marked during pre-trial.

Petition for Review

Metrobank's petition for review raised concerns over the CA's interpretation of the evidence and procedural guidelines, arguing that the CA failed to recognize the ex parte nature of the proceedings which had resulted from the respondents’ failure to appear. Metrobank argued that this procedural background justified the RTC’s admission of all the evidence presented.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Metrobank, concluding that the CA had erred in its assessment of the case. It emphasized that the RTC acted a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.