Title
Ng Ching Ting vs. Philippine Business Bank, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 224972
Decision Date
Jul 9, 2018
Philippine Business Bank sued Jonathan Lim, Carolina Lim, and Richard Ng for loan default. After property foreclosure, a deficiency balance remained. The RTC dismissed the case for inaction, but later reversed its decision. The Supreme Court ruled the RTC’s reversal improper, reinstating the dismissal due to procedural lapses and untimely motions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224972)

Antecedent Facts

The conflict originated on July 23, 2009, when the respondent bank filed a complaint against the three individuals due to Jonathan Lim's failure to meet his loan obligations totaling approximately PHP 5.18 million as of December 17, 2007. To secure the loans, a continuing suretyship was executed by Carolina Lim and Ng Ching Ting, while a parcel of land in Dasmariñas, Cavite, was mortgaged. Following Jonathan's defaults, the bank initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the property, but the proceeds from the auction did not cover the total debt, resulting in a collection suit against the three individuals.

Procedural History

The petitioner, Ng Ching Ting, filed a motion to dismiss the case on November 23, 2009, citing several grounds, including a defective certification of non-forum shopping and an allegedly falsified suretyship agreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied this motion on September 20, 2010. Following inaction on the case, the RTC, on its own motion, dismissed the case on August 11, 2011, for failure to prosecute, prompting the respondent to file a motion for reconsideration a month later, which was initially dismissed for being filed out of time.

RTC Ruling

In an order dated November 16, 2012, the RTC granted the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, determining that the delay was due to the resignation of key in-house counsels and thus warranted a reversal of the dismissal. The RTC concluded that the dismissal was unwarranted given the circumstances that had affected the respondent's diligence.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC’s decision affirming the lifting of the dismissal in its September 29, 2015, ruling, stating that the trial court had the discretion to relax procedural rules to ensure substantial justice, a principle echoed in its resolution denying reconsideration in June 2016.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the CA's affirmation, highlighting that procedural rules must be adhered to and observed as they are designed to prevent delays in judicial procedures. The Court criticized the CA for enabling the respondent's lack of due diligence and emphasizing that the respondent’s inaction over several months constituted a failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC had gravely ab

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.