Title
Viking Industrial Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 143794
Decision Date
Jul 13, 2004
A 1993 loan dispute led to a default judgment against Viking Industrial Corporation, upheld by courts despite claims of "honest mistake" in filing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105376-77)

Factual Background

In 1993, Viking Industrial Corporation extended a loan of PHP 2,000,000 to Jose L. Luison, Jr., secured by a promissory note and real estate mortgage. Two years later, Viking demanded repayment of PHP 19,102,916.39, claiming it covered the principal, interest, and penalties. Luison challenged the validity of Viking's computation. Consequently, he filed a petition for prohibition and declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, due to Viking being incorrectly named as Viking Trading Corporation (VTC) in the petition. The RTC declared Viking in default after it failed to respond to the summons.

RTC Judgment

On July 8, 1996, the RTC rendered a judgment by default in favor of Luison, concluding that the correct loan amount was PHP 1,453,500, and reduced the interest to 30% per annum. Petitioner received the judgment on August 9, 1996, but chose not to appeal. An Order was issued on October 15, 1996, directing execution of the judgment. The Sheriff executed the judgment, and partial payment of PHP 790,605.59 was acknowledged by Luison's representative.

Subsequent Motions and Judgments

Luison sought to have the mortgage annotation canceled and feared potential foreclosure, prompting two motions which the RTC initially denied. However, Judge Pizarro later set aside the default judgment, citing improper service of summons. After reconsideration, the RTC reinstated the judgment by default. Viking filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it, asserting no grave abuse of discretion by Judge Pizarro.

New Trial Motion

On January 21, 1999, Viking filed a motion for new trial, arguing that it refused to file a responsive pleading due to an "honest mistake" concerning its incorrect naming in court documents. The RTC, under Judge Baclig, accepted this argument and granted the motion for a new trial, reasoning that Viking's failure was based on a genuine misunderstanding.

Court of Appeals Decision

Luison filed a petition with the CA against this decision, claiming Judge Baclig had acted with grave abuse of discretion by allowing a new trial. On February 29, 2000, the CA agreed and ruled that Baclig's granting of the motion was improper since it was filed late. Viking contested that it only received the judgment on January 9, 1999, thus its motion was timely.

Legal Analysis

The primary issue was whether Viking's motion for new trial was filed within the permissible timeframe. The CA found that evidence demonstrated Viking received the judgment on August 9, 1996, thus ruling the new trial request was untimely. The S

...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.