ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 150279.May 29, 2002]
DYNASTY RICE MILL INC., et al. vs. ALLIED BANKING CORP.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 MAY2002.
G.R. No. 150279(Dynasty Rice Mill Inc., Manuelito Uy, Araceli and Pacita Uy Pua vs. Allied Banking Corporation.)
In the instant petition for review on certiorari, petitioners assail the Resolution dated August 27, 2001 [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals, which considered their appeal as abandoned and accordingly dismissed the same pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners, through their counsel, received a copy of the assailed Resolution on October 10, 2001. [2] cralaw On October 29, 2001, petitioners filed with this Court a motion [3] cralaw for an extension of thirty (30) days, reckoned from October 29, 2001, within which to file their intended petition for review on certiorari. The Court granted the motion with a statement that the thirty (30)-day extension shall be reckoned from expiration of the reglementary period. [4] cralaw
On November 21, 2001, petitioners filed their petition for review on certiorari. [5] cralaw Pursuant to the Resolution dated January 16, 2002, respondent bank filed its comment to the petition. [6] cralaw
The Court resolves to deny the petition on the following grounds:
1. The petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners admit in their motion for extension of time that they, through their counsel, received a copy of the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals on October 10, 2001. Petitioners had fifteen (15) days, or until October 25, 2001, within which to file a petition for review on certiorari with this Court, or a motion for extension of time to file such a petition. Petitioners filed their motion for extension of time only on October 29, 2001, or four (4) days after the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period expired.
2. Petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in rendering the assailed resolution. The appellate court treated petitioners' appeal as abandoned for failing to file the required appellants' brief within the extended period. The petition, however, does not any way address this matter. Petitioners do not even adduce any explanation for their failure to file the required appellants' brief. Instead, petitioners merely narrated the circumstances that led to the suit between them and respondent bank, and beg the Court, in the interest of substantial justice, to give due course to their petition.
3. On the merits, petitioners likewise failed to show that the trial court committed error when it refused to lend credence to: (a) the allegation of petitioners that they paid respondent bank a total of P5,475,139.88, (b) the appraiser's report, and (c) the testimony of petitioner Pacita Pua that respondent bank agreed "in principle" to accept the mortgaged properties as payment by dacion en pago. As to the ruling of the trial court that there was no indication that the documents presented by respondent bank were marred by irregularities, petitioners failed to present countervailing evidence.Finally, the trial court did not err when it ruled that the mortgagee has the right to claim for any deficiency arising from the difference between the price obtained at the auction sale of the foreclosed properties and the outstanding obligation. [7] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for being insufficient in form and substance.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 18.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 3.
[3] cralaw RoIlo, pp. 3-5.
[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 7.
[5] cralaw RoIlo, pp. 9-13.
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 27-37.
[7] cralaw See Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 229 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
