G.R. No. 164307 - SPOUSES RODELIO AND ALICIA POLTAN, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. AND JOHN DOE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of P286,540.06 with penalty charges thereon for late payment at the rate of 36% per annum from May 28, 1994, until fully paid, and attorney's fees in the sum of P10,000.00, plus the costs of this suit. [14] The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision [15] dated 19 May 1997, the Court of Appeals acted favorably on the appeal of the petitioners, set aside the RTC Decision and remanded the case to the trial court for trial on the merits. On remand, the schedules of hearing of the case as set by the trial court were postponed for several times. The hearing was finally set on 10 January 2000. Again, petitioners, as well as their counsel, failed to appear despite due notice and without just cause. Thus, BPI was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte on 10 January 2000. The trial court then rendered its Decision on 6 April 2000 and held - WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of P286,340.00 with penalty charges thereon for late payment at the rate of 36% per annum from May 20, 1994, until fully paid, and attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to 25% of the sum due, plus the costs of this suit. [16] Aggrieved by the Decision, petitioners again appealed to the Court of Appeals. [17] In a Decision, dated 30 June 2004, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed in toto the Decision of the trial court. [18] Hence, this Petition filed by the petitioners where they raise the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED BY THE TRIAL COURT A QUO AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE TRIAL COURT, MOVED BY AN UNFAIR ATTITUDE OF DISCRIMINATION AND UNFAIRNESS, SUDDENLY ALLOWED THE BPI TO PRESENT EVIDENCE EX PARTE ON JANUARY 11, 2000 - THUS, TOTALLY ELIMINATING THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE PETITIONERS POLTAN TO BE HEARD - SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR FORMER LAWYER ATTY. DOMINGO S. CRUZ, WAS ABSENT DURING THAT PARTICULAR HEARING (JANUARY 10, 2000), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT KNEW FROM THE RECORD THAT ATTY. CRUZ HAD BEEN PRESENT IN THE PAST MANY HEARINGS PRIOR TO JANUARY 10, 2000, WHILE THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ABSENT IN FOR MANY HEARINGS PRIOR TO JANUARY 10, 2000; WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS POLTAN HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS SHOWN BY THE BIASED PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT SINCE 1995, IN THAT, THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN 1995, WITHOUT ANY VALID BASIS AS SHOWN BY THE (FIRST) 1997 DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (EXHIBIT "H"), ALLOWED A BASELESS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, THUS, DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS POLTAN OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, FOR THE FIRST TIME; AND IN THAT, THE PRESIDING JUDGE I