G.R. No. 195592 - MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION, RENATO P. DRAGON AND ESPERANZA TOLENTINO, VS. THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC), INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, defendants should have filed their responsive pleading on October 2, 2000 but no pleading was filed on the aforesaid date, not even a Motion for Extension of Time. Instead, defendants Motion to Dismiss [found its] way into the court only on the 13th day of October, clearly beyond the period contemplated by the Rules. A perusal of the Motion for Leave to Admit the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants reveals that the case, as claimed by the counsel for defendants, was just referred to the counsel only on October 10, and further insinuated that the Motion to Dismiss was only filed on the said date in view of the complicated factual and legal issues involved. While this Court appreciates the efforts and tenacity shown by defendants counsel for having prepared a [lengthy] pleading for his clients in so short a time, the Court will have to rule that the Motion to Dismiss was nonetheless filed out of time, hence, there is sufficient basis to declare defendant[s] in default. x x x. [9] The decretal portion of the Order then reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, defendants[] Motio[n] to Dismiss is hereby treated as a pleading which has not been filed at all and cannot be ruled upon by the Court anymore for the same has been filed out of time. Plaintiffs prayer to declare defendants in default is hereby GRANTED , and as a consequence, defendants are hereby declared in DEFAULT . SO ORDERED . [10] The petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court in its Order [11] dated August 2, 2005. The ex parte presentation of evidence by the bank before the trial courts Presiding Judge was scheduled in the same Order. Unsatisfied with the RTC orders, the petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari , which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 91820. In a Decision12 dated December 2, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC orders after ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it declared herein petitioners in default. The denial of petitioners motion for reconsideration prompted the filing of a petition for review on certiorari before this Court, which, through its Resolutions dated March 5, 200813 and June 25, 2008, [14] denied the petition for lack of merit. In the meantime, TMBCs presentation of evidence ex parte proceeded before Presiding Judge Oscar B. Pimentel of the RTC of Makati City. The Ruling of the RTC On May 20, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision [15] in favor of TMBC and against herein petitioners. The decisions dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff as against: Defendant Magdiwang Realty Corporation, requiring said defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of [P]500,000.00 as indicated in Promissory Note No. 4953; 2. Requiring defendant Magdiwang Realty Corporation to pay the plaintiff interest to the principal loan at the rate of 14% per annum from 27 December 1976 until the amount is paid; Requiring the defenda