Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > August 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 192342 : August 24, 2011] ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES TEODORO CRUZ AND EDITHA CRUZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 August 2011 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 192342 - ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., as successor in interest of Bank of the Philippine Islands, petitioner, v. SPOUSES TEODORO CRUZ and EDITHA CRUZ, et al., respondents.

The petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated May 30, 2011,^[1] denying its petition for review on certiorari for failure to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals.

The petitioner concedes that the second loan for P2 million was not alleged in the complaint, hence, could not be recovered in a complaint that alleged only the first loan for P3.2 million. Nonetheless, the petitioner now argues that the respondent spouses still incurred deficiency liability.^[2]cralaw

The petitioner claims that the testimonial evidence^[3]  it presented showed that the respondent spouses owed not only the balance of P2,794,264.94 (for the P3.2 million loan) and interest thereon of P1,232,749.10, but also other charges such as late payment charges, mortgage redemption insurance, fire insurance, foreclosure expenses, and acquired asset expenses, totaling P2,103,603.06. To be deducted from the sum of the loan balance, interest and other charges are the payments made by the respondent spouses and the bid price. The petitioner claims that the total deficiency liability of the respondent spouses amounts to P1,610,971.43, computed as follows: 

Balance of P3.2 million loan		P2,794,264.94
Plus	Interests	1,232,749.10
	Late payment charges	1,746,746.52
	Mortgage redemption insurance	64,248.50
	Fire insurance	4,712.28
	Foreclosure expenses	177,757.76
	Acquired asset expenses	110,138.00
Subtotal		6,130,617.10
Less	Unapplied payment	(550,000.00)
	Bid price	(4,091,008.00)
Deficiency Liability		1,489,609.10
+ Interests at 15.25%		121,362.33
TOTAL DEFICIENCY LIABILITY		1,610,971.43

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), however, considered only the loan balance and interest (amounting to P4,027,013.64), and declared that these have been covered by the bid price. It did not consider the other charges as the petitioner failed to produce ample proof of their validity. Accordingly, the RTC ruled that the respondent spouses were not liable for any deficiency liability and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with the RTC's findings and conclusions. 

The petitioner posits that to deny its petition is to sanction the erroneous rulings of the lower courts, contrary to the evidence it submitted. The "new computation," it argues, merits the setting aside of the Court's Resolution. The petitioner further states: 

With new computation x x x will this Court stick to its ruling, after showing fallacy and flaw in its ruling? x x x Clear and convincing evidence contradicts the finding of dismissal in this Court's Resolution dated May 30, 2011. Will this Honorable Supreme Court still maintain its stand? The Resolution appears to be tenuous and specious with this new development, x x x. 

It takes wisdom and maturity to admit mistake. It is never too late to right a wrong x x x. 

Counsel appeals for enlightenment x x x. Take a second hard look at the new argument raised in this reconsideration. Is the computation supported with evidence? Does it sound reasonable and convincing? x x x There are dissenting opinions in this collegiate body which may agree with counsel. Give this Petition a chance for such dissenting opinion, x x x There may be one or two brave souls who will take side with counsel.^[4]

The arguments that the petitioner raises
involve factual questions and were not
raised during appeal. 

The proper computation of the amount due involves a question of fact that cannot be the subject of a Rule 45 petition.^[5] Questions of fact are matters that should be resolved in the proceedings before the trial court and, if objected to, threshed out in the appeal before the CA. For this reason, the Court generally accords finality and conclusiveness on the factual findings of the lower courts that have been affirmed by the CA.

In this case, the RTC already ruled against the inclusion of the other charges, since the petitioner's evidence failed to prove their validity; the CA affirmed this ruling.^[6]  If the petitioner did not agree with this finding, it should have raised the matter as an issue in its appeal of the RTC decision before the CA; the records, however, show that the petitioner focused its appeal only on the inclusion of the second loan as part of its cause of action.^[7] It never raised the inclusion of other charges until now.

The petitioner only has its counsel to blame for his failure to raise this question during appeal. The counsel cannot shift the blame to this Court for his own negligence and incompetence. He should be reminded of basic legal rules: the admissibility of evidence is not equivalent to its probative value^[8] and the Court is not a trier of facts.^[9] As a lawyer, he should also be reminded of his duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers,^[10] and avoid making imputations involving members of the Court.

Indeed, there is even reason to suspect the validity of the "new computation" of accounts that the petitioner makes. Despite the exclusion of the second loan for P3.2 million, the other charges (except for the late payment charges) that the petitioner is claiming remain the same:^[11] cralaw

			Old Computation   including the two loans		New computation   including only the first loan
Balance of P3.2 million loan		P4,300,219.48		P2,794,264.94
Plus	Interests	1,998,049.99		1,232,749.10
	Late payment charges	3,178,934.62		1,746,746.52
	Mortgage redemption insurance	64,248.50		64,248.50
	Fire insurance	4,712.28		4,712.28
	Foreclosure expenses	177,757.76		177,757.76
	Acquired asset expenses	110,138.00		110,138.00
Subtotal		9,834,040.63		6,130,617.10
Less	Unapplied payment	(550,000.00)		(550,000.00)
	Bid price	(4,091,008.00)		(4,091,008.00)
Deficiency Liability		5,193,032.63		1,489,609.10
+ Interests at 15.25%				12,362.33
TOTAL DEFICIENCY LIABILITY				1,610,971.43

WHEREFORE, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, no substantial arguments having been given to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution of May 30, 2011. This denial is FINAL. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Costs against the petitioner. 

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Division Clerk of Court

By:

  (Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 93-100.

^[2] Id. at 102. 

^[3] Annexed to the motion is the TSN of October 3, 2003; id. at 113-132. 

^[4] Id., at 103. 

^[5] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1. 

^[6] See rollo, pp. 47 and 70-71. 

^[7] See id. at 42. 

^[8] People v. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917 (1996). 

^[9] New City Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 499 Phil. 207 (2005) 

^[10] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 20(b). 

^[11] Rollo, p. 112. 

^[*] Sereno, J., on leave: Peralta, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No.1067 dated August 23, 2011. 

^[**] Reyes, J., on official leave: Mendoza, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1066 dated August 23, 2011.