THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232046. August 23, 2017.]
BONIFACIO S. CABATIT, JR., petitioner, vs. SB CARDS CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 23, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232046 (Bonifacio S. Cabatit, Jr. vs. SB Cards Corporation). — The Court EXCLUDES the Court of Appeals as respondent from the title of this case pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated October 27, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution 2 dated May 22, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 103664, which modified the Decision dated July 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 138, in Civil Case No. 12-809.
The Facts
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
[Respondent] is a domestic corporation engaged in the business and operation of credit cards. It issued the following credit cards to [petitioner]: (1.) Diners Club Credit Card (No. 36448039677017); and (2.) Security Bank Mastercard (No. 5156030000046845). Using these credit cards, [petitioner] incurred credit charges in the total amount of P483,358.99 inclusive of interest and penalty. Despite [respondent's] repeated demands, [petitioner] failed to pay his obligation prompting the former to file the Complaint.
In his Answer, [petitioner] admitted that he is a holder of the credit cards issued by [respondent] but disputed the amount of his obligation of P483,358.99 which, according to him, was excessive and yielded exorbitant interest rate and penalty charges. As his special defense, he alleged that [respondent] has no cause of action against him because it failed to provide him the recomputation of his obligation without interest and penalty charges. The case was first referred to mediation but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, hence, trial proceeded. acEHCD
[Respondent] presented Mr. Ryan J. Villasanta II, its Manager and Recovery Officer who testified that he endorsed the delinquent account of [petitioner] to its external counsel for the filing of the collection suit. On the other hand, [petitioner] was declared to have waived the presentation of his evidence for failing to appear at the presentation of his evidence on May 8, 2014 and June 26, 2014. Thus, the case was submitted for decision sans his evidence. 3
The Ruling of the RTC
On July 30, 2014, the RTC ruled in favor of respondent stating that respondent has established petitioner's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the use of petitioner's credit cards which has the force of law between them. However, notwithstanding the stipulations of the parties of the interest charge at the rate of 3.25% per month and the late payment charge equivalent to 5.0% per month, the court found it equitable to reduce the same to 1.0% per month. 4 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premise considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioner] Bonifacio S. Cabatit, Jr. to pay [respondent] SB Cards Corporation, the following amount:
1. The principal claim/amount of demand of P204,094.27 as of October 8, 2010 under Diners Club Credit Card No. 3644-803967-7017, plus interest charge at the rate of 1% per month and late payment charge of 1% per month or a total of 2.0% from November 8, 2010 until the account is fully paid;
2. The principal claim/amount of demand of P278,454.72 as of September 27, 2010 under Security Bank Mastercard No. 5156-0300-0004-6845, plus interest charge at the rate of 1% per month and late payment charge of 1% per month or a total of 2.0% from October 27, 2010 until the account is fully paid;
3. The amount of P40,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; and
4. The cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED. 5
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied per RTC Order dated September 23, 2014. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated October 27, 2016, the CA held that the amount of petitioner's indebtedness was properly established by respondent.
However, it modified the RTC Decision by deleting the award of attorney's fees for failure of the RTC to state the reasons for the award thereof. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The July 30, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 138, in Civil Case No. 12-809 is hereby MODIFIED as to the award of attorney's fees which is hereby DELETED for lack of any factual or legal basis. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED. 6
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated May 22, 2017. Hence, this petition.
The Issues
Petitioner anchors his plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the following grounds:
I.
The Hon. Court of Appeals gravely erred when it affirmed the trial court's Decision and ruled that the amount of [petitioner's] indebtedness was properly established; and
II.
The Hon. Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that [petitioner's] silence in not questioning the correctness of the Statement of Accounts (SOAs) is tantamount to an admission of the entries in the said SOAs. 7
Succinctly put, the pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC that petitioner is liable to pay his indebtedness to respondent.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is unmeritorious.
It must be dismissed on various procedural grounds.
First, petitioner did not attach the certified true copies or clearly legible copies of the judgments or resolutions of the RTC in contravention of Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, the petition lacks the requisite verification and certification against forum shopping. These two violations can be grounds for the dismissal of the petition as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
It is well-settled that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his or her thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 8 AScHCD
Being a lawyer himself, petitioner must be fully aware of the procedural requirements for filing an appeal before this Court. This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules as it is the duty of every member of the bar to comply with these rules. 9
At any rate, even if the Court is inclined to disregard this procedural infirmity and decide the case on its merit, the petition must still be denied. The issues raised by petitioner are only a rehash of what was already resolved by the RTC and the CA. As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal to this Court. This Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the CA. Absent any showing that some facts of certain weight and substance were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case, the Court, as in this case, will uphold the findings of the RTC and the CA. 10
As such, We find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA as the evidence shows that the amount of petitioner's indebtedness was properly established. Respondent was able to prove the amount of petitioner's indebtedness by presenting the bank statements. As correctly cited by the CA, in Land Bank v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation, 11 this Court explained the evidentiary value of a bank statement, to wit:
x x x But a bank statement, properly authenticated by a competent bank officer, can serve as evidence of the status of those accounts and what Monet and the Tagles still owe the bank. Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries prepared in the regular course of business are prima facie evidence of the truth of what they state. The billing statement reconciles the transaction entries entered in the bank records in the regular course of business and shows the net result of such transactions.
Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind of records. 12 (Emphasis supplied)
The RTC and the CA did not err in relying on the bank statements to determine the principal amount of petitioner's indebtedness to respondent. Petitioner could have presented contradictory evidence but he failed to do so. He also cannot be totally excused from the payment of interest since such interest is a direct consequence of his non-payment of his obligation which is included in the terms and conditions of his credit card. AcICHD
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed October 27, 2016 Decision and May 22, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 103664, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-13. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2.Id. at 28-29.
3.Id. at 7-8.
4.Id. at 9.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 12.
7.Id. at 38.
8.Bergonia v. Court of Appeals (4th Division), G.R. No. 189151, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 322, 331.
9.Rivera-Pascual v. Lim, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 429, 437.
10.Hko Ah Pao v. Ting, G.R. No. 153476, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 551, 562.
11. G.R. No. 184971, April 9, 2010, 618 SCRA 451.
12.Id. at 458-459.