SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241332. October 8, 2018.]
ARTHUR A. CASTRO, JR., petitioner,vs. GLOBALTECH INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 October 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241332 (Arthur A. Castro, Jr. v. Globaltech Industrial Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the March 13, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 8, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144180 for failure of petitioner Arthur A. Castro, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding him liable for the amount of P291,338.50, representing his cash advances and loans from respondent Globaltech Industrial Corporation (respondent). However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 4 the Court deems it proper to impose legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint 5 on October 16, 2003 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment. CHTAIc
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent was able to establish petitioner's loan obligation towards it, and as such, he must be made to fulfill the same. 6 Records show that petitioner has an outstanding loan obligation in the amount of P291,338.50 based on the vouchers and ledgers which he duly acknowledged, signed, and received from respondent. 7 He even expressed his willingness to pay the remaining balance thereof in his resignation letter 8 dated June 12, 2003. 9 Jurisprudence holds that in a suit for a recovery of sum of money, the plaintiff-creditor has the burden of proof to show by preponderance of evidence that defendant-debtor has not paid him the amount of the contracted loan, 10 which respondent successfully discharged in this case.
Moreover, it bears stressing that the other issues raised in the instant petition are factual in nature and thus, outside the province of a Rule 45 petition. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect, unless there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the case, 11 which do not obtain herein.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, JR., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.) EATCcI
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-27.
2.Id. at 33-46. Perused by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-52.
4.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013). See also Spouses Abella v. Spouses Abella, 763 Phil. 372, 385 (2015).
5.Rollo, pp. 54-57.
6. See id. at 39.
7. See id. at 37 and 40.
8. Not attached to the rollo.
9. See rollo, pp. 36 and 40.
10. See Ubas, Sr. v. Chan, G.R. No. 215910, February 6, 2017, 816 SCRA 659, 667.
11.Almojuela v. People, 734 Phil. 636, 651 (2014); citations omitted.