Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R. No. 196323, (February 8, 2021)
PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R. No. 196323, (February 8, 2021)
DECISION
HERNANDO, J : p
This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 seeks to set aside the April 30,
2010 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80268
denying the appeal of petitioner Maybank Philippines, Inc. (Maybank;
formerly known as PNB-Republic Bank), as well as its March 16, 2011
Resolution 3 denying Maybank's Motion for Reconsideration. 4
The antecedents as culled from the assailed CA Decision are as follows:
Sometime in 1979, respondent Remedios Sian-Limsiaco (Remedios)
obtained a P142,500.00 sugar crop loan from Maybank which was payable
within one year. 5 Through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Remedios
executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) on the following parcels of land:
(a) Â Lot 8, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT)
T-74488, which is owned by Sian Agricultural Corporation;
(b) Â Lot 1, covered by TCT No. 55619, which is owned by
spouses Sebastian and Marina de la Pena. 6
Subsequently in 1982, Remedios and her son Roy Sian-Limsiaco (Roy)
obtained another sugar crop loan for P307,700.00 which was likewise due
after one year. Through another SPA, Roy executed a REM on the following
parcels of land owned by Spouses Jerome Gonzales and Perla Sian-Gonzales:
(a) Â Lot 214, covered by TCT No. T-121539;
(b) Â Lot 215, covered by TCT No. T-121540;
(c) Â Lot 213-B, covered by TCT No. T-121541;
(d) Â Lot 96, covered by TCT No. T-80515. 7
evidence supporting such. Moreover, the records would reveal that trial
ensued like in an ordinary civil action, and in fact, respondent was able to
present two (2) witnesses. 56
Despite being served summons and given more than enough
opportunities to defend itself, petitioner still failed to refute respondent's
allegations that the former failed to exercise its right to collect on the
subject sugar crop loans for almost 16 years and that such failure rendered
the mortgage contracts functus officio, unenforceable, and of no force and
effect due to prescription and laches. 57 Neither did the petitioner present
any iota of evidence to even cast a doubt on such fact. Instead, petitioner
have stubbornly relied on mere technicalities for its defense, up until the
instant petition before us.
Clearly, the parties' right to due process had been substantially
complied with, given that both parties were given the opportunity to present
their side and adduce their own evidence to bolster their positions. To
emphasize, it has always been a basic principle in our jurisdiction that on
balance, substantial justice trumps procedural rules, 58 especially given that
there is no prejudice to the parties' right to due process. This axiom is
especially true if the strict and rigid application of such procedural rules
would result in technicalities which tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice. 59
While the proceedings of this case may have been riddled with
procedural infirmities, none have been so severe as to deprive the parties to
their right to due process and fair hearing. Indeed, it would be the height of
injustice for us to remand a roughly two-decades-old dispute to the trial
court just to unnecessarily thresh out matters that were not even issues in
the first place, based on a mere technicality.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The
April 30, 2010 Decision and March 16, 2011 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80268 are AFFIRMED. Costs on petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, * Delos Santos and J.Y. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Â
Footnotes
* Designated as additional Member per raffle dated September 30, 2020 vice J.
Inting who recused himself since his sister (then Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals, Socorro B. Inting) penned the assailed Decision of the Court
of Appeals.
3. Id. at 20-21.
5. Rollo , p. 11.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 11-12.
8. Id. at 12.
9. Id.
11. Id. at 34-36; see Motion for Substitution and Motion to Dismiss.
13. Id. at 81; see March 12, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan,
Negros Occidental, Branch 56.
14. Id. at 137; see June 6, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan,
Negros Occidental, Branch 56.
37. Id.
45. Id.
59. Republic of the Philippines vs. Dimarucot, 827 Phil. 360, 373 (2018).