THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234613. January 8, 2018.]
SONIA DE LEON GUADALUPE, petitioner,vs. JOSE ALONZO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 8, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234613 (Sonia De Leon Guadalupe v. Jose Alonzo). — Petitioner Sonia De Leon Guadalupe (petitioner) is appealing the Decision 1 dated January 13, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) — Second Division and Resolution 2 dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals — Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 145064. The CA decision affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated February 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Quezon City (RTC) in Crim. Case No. Q-11-168183-90, which modified the civil aspect of the Judgment 4 dated August 16, 2010 of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 43, Quezon City (MeTC) in Crim. Case No. 0104411-18 for eight counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner received money from respondent in connection with a money-lending business run by petitioner. Respondent gave money by making 15 separate cash deposits totalling P1,800,000.00 to petitioner's bank account on different dates from August 2, 1996 to December 18, 1998 and by personally delivering to petitioner on different occasions a total of P300,000.00 in cash. Petitioner, meanwhile, issued eight undated checks in respondent's favor every time money is given by respondent. The checks amounted to P2,100,000.00 all in all. Petitioner promised to pay respondent within one year from receipt of the money covered by the eight checks. However, she failed to pay the loan and refused to fund the checks. Respondent thus decided to write the date "January 3, 2001" on all the checks and to deposit them. The checks were then dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was already closed. Respondent allegedly sent a letter dated January 29, 2001 demanding payment, but petitioner still failed to pay. This led to the filing of eight criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against petitioner before the MeTC, Branch 43, Quezon City. She entered a plea of not guilty for all eight charges.
The MeTC Judgment
The MeTC ruled to acquit petitioner because the prosecution failed to show that petitioner was actually notified of the checks' dishonor. However, the MeTC adjudged petitioner civilly liable for P2,100,000.00, with legal interest at 12% per annum reckoned from June 18, 2001, the date of the filing of the criminal informations, until full payment.
The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, on grounds of reasonable doubt, the accused SONIA DE LEON GUADALUPE is hereby ACQUITTED. However, she is civilly liable in the amount of TWO MILLION and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php2,100,000.00) PESOS, plus legal interest of twelve (12%) per cent per annum reckoned from June 18, 2001 (filing of the Informations) until fully paid and to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 5
The RTC Decision
The RTC modified the civil aspect of the MeTC's decision. It pointed out that petitioner admitted receiving P1,800,000.00. The receipt was also evidenced by the deposit slips presented by respondent. Petitioner also presented proof before the MeTC that she already paid P776,837.07 by check from March 6, 1996 to February 1999. The RTC also found that the P300,000.00 respondent allegedly hand-delivered to petitioner is not part of the loan because there is no substantial evidence proving that this amount was received by petitioner. The RTC thus ordered petitioner to pay only P1,023,162.93, the amount remaining from the P1,800,000.00 received after deducting the P776,837.07 payment made. Legal interest at 6% per annum was also imposed from August 16, 2010, the date of the MeTC judgment, until full payment.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the civil aspect of the decision of the Court of Origin, dated August 16, 2010, is hereby modified as follows:
1. Accused-appellant SONIA DE LEON GUADALUPE is hereby ordered to pay the total balance amount of Php1,023,162.93 to the private complainant Alonzo plus the legal interest rate of 6% per annum from August 16, 2010, the date of the decision of the Court of Origin, until the said balance amount is fully satisfied; and
2. To pay the costs of suit. aScITE
SO ORDERED.6
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of this decision, but the motion was denied. 7
The CA Decision
The CA denied the petition. However, it modified the RTC's decision by ruling that petitioner should pay the loan balance of P1,023,162.93 with legal interest at 12% per annum from August 16, 2010 until June 30, 2013 and at 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment, in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799.
The CA reasoned that petitioner did not submit any evidence to prove that such a business partnership existed. Since petitioner admitted receipt of P1,800,000.00 from respondent and considering the deposit slips presented by respondent, the CA concluded that the contract between the parties is one of loan, as it involved the delivery of money by one party to another who acquires ownership of it on the condition that the same amount shall be paid. There could not possibly be a joint venture agreement between them because, if such was the case, there would be no need for petitioner to issue eight checks representing the money she received from respondent and for the payment of agreed interest. The checks prove that the money was given as a loan and not as capital for a money-lending business.
The dispositive portion of the CA's decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. However, the assailed decision dated February 18, 2014 is hereby modified as to the legal interest imposed, in that, petitioner Sonia De Leon Guadalupe is hereby ordered to pay respondent Jose D. Alonzo the total balance of P1,023,162.93 plus the legal interest of 12% per annum from August 16, 2010, the date of the decision of the MeTC until June 30, 2013, and 6% legal interest from July 1, 2013 until the amount is fully satisfied.
SO ORDERED.8
CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 9 Hence, this appeal.
The Present Appeal
Petitioner raises only one assignment error, that the CA committed grievous error in law in applying legal principles concerning loan in appreciating the relationship between the parties.
The Court's Ruling
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to deny the petition for lack of merit.
The Court gives credence to the factual findings reached by the lower courts, which supported the CA's conclusion that preponderant evidence sufficiently showed that the agreement between petitioner and respondent is one of loan. Since petitioner proffered no extraordinary reason to impel the Court to deviate from the legal conclusion of the CA, the latter's decision must be affirmed.
However, said decision must be modified as to the date when the legal interest should run. Legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum should be imposed on the remaining unpaid amount of the loan evidenced by the eight dishonored checks starting June 18, 2001, the date the eight criminal informations were filed, until June 30, 2013. This interest is then reduced to 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until the amount is fully paid, in accordance with BSP Circular No. 799.
WHEREFORE, the Court rules to DENY the petition filed by petitioner Sonia De Leon Guadalupe for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals-Second Division dated January 13, 2017 is thus AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATION: petitioner Guadalupe is hereby ordered to pay respondent Jose Alonzo the loan balance of P1,023,162.93 with legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from June 18, 2001 until June 30, 2013, and at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-46. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting.
2.Id. at pp. 47-48. The Resolution was also penned by Associate Justice Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Baltazar-Padilla and Inting.
3.Id. at pp. 70-73. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Ralph S. Lee.
4.Id. at pp. 63-69. The Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.
5.Rollo, pp. 68-69.
6.Rollo, p. 73.
7.Id. at p. 83.
8.Rollo, pp. 45-46.
9.Id. at pp. 47-48.