THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234367. January 8, 2018.]
FIRST E-BANK TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. INSURANCE COMMISSION-REGULATION, ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION DIVISION AND CHARTER PING-AN INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 8, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234367 (First e-Bank Tower Condominium Corporation vs. Insurance Commission-Regulation, Enforcement and Prosecution Division and Charter Ping-An Insurance Corporation). — The Court NOTES:
(1) petitioner's Manifestation of Filing Pleading by Registered Mail with Tender of Cash Payment of Docket/Legal Fees and Judicial Cost Deposit dated October 11, 2017, in compliance with the Resolution of October 4, 2017; and
(2) petitioner's Manifestation of Compliance dated December 4, 2017 tendering its affidavit of service of the motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari to the adverse counsel and the Court of Appeals as well as its Official Receipt No. 0194673 as proof of payment of docket and other lawful fees.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated December 16, 2016 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner's insistence that private respondent Charter Ping-An Insurance Corporation should have been declared in default by the public respondent for allegedly committing extrinsic fraud in the filing of its Answer cannot be countenanced by this Court.
Time and again, this Court has held that courts and tribunals should proceed with deciding cases on the merits as default judgments are "frowned upon." 1 It held that parties should be given every chance to fight their case fairly and in the open, without resort to technicality. 2 This is so since judgments by default may result in considerable injustice to defendants. 3 This rule finds more application in summary proceedings which are "not necessarily adhering to or following the technical rules of evidence obtaining in the courts of law." 4 Thus, as the appellate court found, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Insurance Commission in refusing to precipitately hold the private respondent in default.
Moreover, fraud being a serious charge, 5 its existence must be demonstrated by a clear, strong, and convincing evidence. 6 Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud. Further, the burden of evidence rests on the part of the party alleging fraud. 7 However, the petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof, relying merely on conjectures. Both the Insurance Commission and the appellate court could, therefore, not be faulted for upholding the presumption that regularity attended the issuance and use of the registry receipts and the timely filing of private respondent's Answer.
Finally, the appellate court correctly found the petition for certiorari premature 8 and, thus, not compliant with the requirement that petitions for certiorari can only be filed when there is no other speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. At the very least, petitioner should have first given the public respondent an opportunity to pass upon and rule on its motion for reconsideration before bringing the matter posthaste to the CA. acEHCD
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The December 16, 2016 Decision and August 16, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143737 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. ZuelligPharma Corp., 729 Phil. 440, 483 (2014), citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 565 Phil. 172, 185 (2007); Samartino v. Raon, 433 Phil. 173, 187 (2002); Tanchan v. Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 34, 41 (1999).
2.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. Nos. 203054-55, July 29, 2015.
3.Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 565 Phil. 172-193 (2007).
4. Section 3, Memorandum Circular No. 1-93 December 3, 1992, "Insurance Memorandum Rules of Procedure Governing Administrative Cases Before the Insurance Commission."
5.Esguerra v. Trinidad, 547 Phil. 99-113 (2007), citing Quinsay v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 67935, March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 268, 282.
6.Alcantara v. Roble de Templa, 603 Phil. 252-264 (2009).
7.Riguer v. Mateo, G.R. No. 222538, June 21, 2017.
8.Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. v. Bello, 117 Phil. 745-751 (1963).