FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238645. July 11, 2018.]
CITIBANK N.A.-PHILIPPINE BRANCH, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES LOPE Q. PASCUAL AND CASIMIRA C. PASCUAL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238645 — Citibank N.A.-Philippine Branch, petitioner, vs. Spouses Lope Q. Pascual and Casimira C. Pascual, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on April 6, 2018 within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. ISHaCD
Petitioner insists that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it refused to admit the subject microfilms/microfiches and the accompanying judicial affidavits, and explains that "[t]he filing of the judicial affidavits were necessitated by the crucial discovery of the microfiches which were only discovered after [the] termination of pre-trial but before initial trial." 2 Moreover, it claims that its right to due process was violated, for "despite the paramount importance of these evidences, the trial court has chosen to invoke technicality over the substantial right of herein petitioner to present its side and show the whole truth." 3
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC 4 provides that:
No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than those that had been identified below and pre-marked during the pre-trial. Any other evidence not indicated or listed below shall be considered waived by the parties. However, the Court, in its discretion, may allow introduction of additional evidence in the following cases: (a) those to be used on cross-examination or re-cross-examination for impeachment purposes; (b) those presented on re-direct examination to explain or supplement the answers of a witness during the cross-examination; (c) those to be utilized for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes; and (d) those not available during the pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party offering the same. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
In this case, we agree with the CA's conclusion that petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in locating the subject microfilms/microfiches as it took petitioner four (4) years from the time respondents filed their complaint against it to produce the same. 5 To make matters worse, although said pieces of evidence were supposedly discovered on May 8, 2015, petitioner failed to submit the same to the trial court on May 11, 2015 together with the Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Joe March S. Bernabe (Bernabe), which judicial affidavit specifically discussed the discovery of subject microfilms/microfiches. 6 Petitioner submitted the subject microfilms/microfiches, accompanied by Bernabe's Second Supplemental Affidavit and the Judicial Affidavit of Demetrio M. Macapagal, Jr. only on July 31, 2015, or more than two (2) months after the discovery of the same. 7
Given these circumstances, we uphold the CA's finding that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it refused to admit the additional evidence and judicial affidavits submitted by petitioner. DHESca
Notably, the trial court expressly stated in its Pre-Trial Order 8 dated March 23, 2015 that any additional evidence submitted after the date of the initial trial of the case will be considered waived, viz.:
The parties are directed to submit the judicial affidavit of all their witnesses and additional evidence, if they have any, before the initial trial of this case, otherwise, the same will be considered waived.
There being no other matters to be tackled, pre-trial is terminated. Set the initial presentation of [respondents'] evidence on May 11, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are notified in open court. 9
Since the subject microfilms/microfiches and the accompanying judicial affidavits were submitted by petitioner only on July 31, 2015, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it considered the same waived.
"The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense." 10 There is no denial of procedural due process in cases where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, 11 as in this case. Indeed, it was through petitioner's own fault that its additional evidence and accompanying judicial affidavits were rejected by the trial court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the November 27, 2017 Decision and the March 1, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145638.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. cDTACE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 38.
3.Id. at 37.
4. Re: Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures.
5.Rollo, pp. 73-74.
6.Id. at 291-294.
7.Id. at 308-311.
8.Id. at 287-290.
9.Id. at 289.
10.The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario, 645 Phil. 166, 180 (2010). Emphasis supplied.
11.Id.