G.R. NO. 160976 - SPOUSES ERNESTO ZARATE AND MA. ROSARIO ZARATE, VS. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES, INC. AND PHILMAY PROPERTY, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that upon the filing of the complaint, a temporary restraining order be issued enjoining the defendants from making any attempt to consolidate title over the subject property and if they have already done so, that they be stopped from taking over possession thereof. Further, after due hearing, for the Honorable Court to issue an order directing the defendants to issue a true and proper accounting of plaintiffs accountability and to extend the period to redeem the subject property. Further, after due hearing, for the Honorable Court to issue an order directing the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffs : The amount of not less than PhP100,000.00 as and for moral damages; The amount of not less than PhP50,000.00 as and for exemplary damages; The amount of not less than PhP100,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; The cost of suits Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for. [10] The spouses Zarate alleged, inter alia, that their failure to redeem the property within the extension period granted by Maybank was due to the latters failure to include their payment of P708,950.00 via PCIBank Managers Check No. 33908 dated July 24, 1995. Such payment was not included in the statement of account which the bank furnished them. Moreover, according to the spouses, the interest charged by the bank on their loans exceeded those provided by law. On October 30, 1998, the trial court received ex parte the testimony [11] of Ma. Rosario Zarate in support of their plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The spouses Zarate offered in evidence the receipt issued by the bank, dated November 18, 1997, and a Certification, of even date, also issued by the bank, acknowledging receipt of P1,000,000.00. [12] Ma. Rosario Zarate admitted, however, that the bank had returned the amount. [13] The trial court did not rule on the spouses offer of documentary evidence, on their plea that they needed time to raise the money to redeem the property. On November 19, 1998, the defendants filed their Answer [14] to the complaint, traversing the material allegations thereof and interposing a counterclaim. They maintained that their transactions with the spouses Zarate were above-board, and that contrary to the couples claim, the P708,950.00 payment was duly reflected on their November 27, 1997 statement of account. They explained that more than half of the P708,950.00 was applied to the outstanding interests and penalties, and what remained was P223,593.00, the amount reflected on the statement of account opposite the column unpaid interest as of July 24, 1995. [15] They prayed that the complaint be dismissed, and, by way of counterclaim, asked for the recovery of exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and costs of the suit. [16] The issues having been joined, the pre-trial conference was scheduled on January 18, 1999. It was, however, postponed several times due to the parties attempts t