Digest of Radiowealth PDF Free

Radiowealth Finance Company v. Del Rosario 1991.
Their only defense was the absence of an

G.R. No. 138739 July 6, 2000 agreement on when the installment payments were to
begin
Lessons Applicable: Demurrer to Evidence, ISSUES:
Promissory Note, When Demandable, Penalty, 1. W/N the spouses can still present evidence after
Interest (Credit Transactions) the appellate court’s reversal of the dismissal on
demurer of evidence (Civil Procedure)
Laws Applicable: Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Court 2. W/N the obligation is due and demandable
(Civil Procedure) (Credit Transaction)
FACTS: HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Appealed Decision is

• March 2, 1991: Spouses Vicente and Maria MODIFIED. Ordered to PAY P138,948, plus 2.5
Sumilang del Rosario jointly and severally executed, percent penalty charge per month beginning April 2,
signed and delivered in favor of Radiowealth Finance 1991 until fully paid, and 10 percent of the amount
Company a Promissory Note for P138,948 without due as attorney’s fees.
need of notice or demand, in instalments of
P11,579.00 payable for 12 consecutive months 1. NO.
leaving the period for the instalments blank. Upon • Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules
default, the late payment, 2.5% penalty charge per o SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.—After the
month shall be added to each unpaid installment from plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
due date thereof until fully paid. evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on
• June 7, 1993: Radiowealth filed a complaint for the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
the collection of a sum of money before the has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied,
RegionalTrial Court of Manila. During the trial, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the
Jasmer Famatico, the credit and collection officer of motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal
Radiowealth, presented in evidence the Spouses’ is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the
check payments, the demand letter dated July 12, right to present evidence.
1991, Spouses’ customer’s ledger card, another • Defendants who present a demurrer to the
demand letter and Metropolitan Bank dishonor slips. plaintiff’s evidence retain the right to present their own
Famatico admitted that he did not have personal evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them; if
knowledge of the transaction or the execution of any the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the
of these pieces of documentary evidence, which had appellate court disagrees with both of them and
merely been endorsed to him. reverses the dismissal order, the defendants lose the
• July 29, 1994: Spouses filed a Demurrer to right to present their own evidence
Evidence for alleged lack of cause of action • The appellate court shall resolve the case and
• RTC: Dismissed for Radiowealth’s failure to render judgment on the merits, inasmuch as a
substantiate the claims, the evidence it had presented demurrer aims to discourage prolonged litigations
being merely hearsay
• CA: reversed and remanded the case for further 2. Yes.
proceedings • The act of leaving blank the due date of the first
o During the pretrial, through judicial admissions or installment did NOT necessarily mean that the
the spouses admitted the genuineness of the debtors were allowed to pay as and when they could.
Promissory Note and demand letter dated July 12, While the specific date on which each installment
would be due was left blank, the Note clearly provided
that each installment should be payable each month.
It also provided for an acceleration clause and a late
payment penalty, both of which showed the intention
of the parties that the installments should be paid at a
definite date. Per the acceleration clause, the whole
debt became due one month (April 2, 1991) after the
date of the Note because the check representing their
first installment bounced.
• Respondents started paying installments on the
Promissory Note, even if the checks were dishonored
by their drawee bank.
• The Note already stipulated a late payment
penalty of 2.5 percent monthly to be added to each
unpaid installment until fully paid. Payment of interest
was not expressly stipulated in the Note. Thus, it
should be deemed included in such penalty.
Liquidated damages, however, should no longer be
imposed for being unconscionable. Such damages
should also be deemed included in the 2.5 percent
monthly penalty. Furthermore, we hold that petitioner
is entitled to attorney’s fees, but only in a sum equal
to 10 percent of the amount due which we deem
reasonable under the proven facts

Digest of Radiowealth PDF Free

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest of Radiowealth PDF Free

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest of Radiowealth PDF Free

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiowealth Finance Company v. Del Rosario 1991.

Their only defense was the absence of an

FACTS: HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Appealed Decision is

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.