G.R. No. 181235 - BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK), VS. JOHN TANSIPEK. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [JOCI] and against the defendant bank [PCIB] ordering the latter to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P4,050,136.51 with interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of this complaint until fully paid plus costs of suit. The other damages claimed by the plaintiff are denied for being speculative. On the third party complaint, third-party defendant John Tansipek is ordered to pay the third-party plaintiff Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank all amounts said defendant/third-party plaintiff shall have to pay to the plaintiff on account of this case. [3] Respondent Tansipek appealed the Decision to the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69130. Respondent Tansipek assigned the following alleged errors: a) The trial court's decision upholding the order of default and the consequent ex-parte reception of appellee's evidence was anchored on erroneous and baseless conclusion that: 1) The original reglementary period to plead has already expired. 2) The ten day extended period to answer has likewise expired. 3) There is no need to pass upon a second motion to plead much less, any need for a new motion for extended period to plead. b) The trial court erred in utterly depriving the appellant of his day in court and in depriving constitutional, substantive and procedural due process premised solely on pure and simple technicality which never existed and are imaginary and illusory. c) The trial court erred in ordering the third-party defendant-appellant John Tansipek to pay the third party plaintiff-appellee PCIBank all amounts said bank shall have to pay to the plaintiff-appellee by way of subrogation since appellant if allowed to litigate in the trial court, would have obtained a favorable judgment as he has good, valid and meritorious defenses. [4] On 18 August 2006, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision finding that it was an error for the trial court to have acted on PCIB's motion to declare respondent Tansipek in default. The Court of Appeals thus remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The decision relative to the third party complaint is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is ordered REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings on the third party complaint. [5] The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration of PCIB in a Resolution dated 9 January 2008. Petitioner Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc., as successor-in-interest to PCIB, filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari , assailing the above Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and laying down a lone issue for this Court's consideration: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVERSE ITS DECISION HANDED DOWN EIGHT YEARS BEFORE. [6] To recapitulate, upon being declared in default, respondent Tansipek filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Default Order. Upon denial t