FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236763. April 11, 2018.]
IDHI PRIME AGGREGATES CORPORATION; IDHI MINERALS CORPORATION; INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, INC.; SANTIAGO J. TANCHAN AND ROLANDO M. ZOSA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS SURETIES AND OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATIONS, petitioners, vs.INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236763 — IDHI PRIME AGGREGATES CORPORATION; IDHI MINERALS CORPORATION; INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, INC.; SANTIAGO J. TANCHAN AND ROLANDO M. ZOSA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS SURETIES AND OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATIONS, Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES), Respondent.
The Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated March 31, 2017 and Resolution dated December 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102040 for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
In the instant case, the trial court dismissed the complaint for replevin and/or sum of money filed by the respondent against the petitioners for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further reception of evidence for an accurate determination of the obligation of the petitioners to the respondent. Hence, the petitioners question this order of the Court of Appeals and allege that the respondent cannot be ordered anew to present evidence of its claim against them. They likewise present the following issues for the resolution of this Court: whether or not there was prior demand, default in the payment, and actual release of the full amount of the loan agreement; and whether or not the interest rates, penalty charges and chattel mortgages are valid.
From the foregoing, the petitioners are clearly raising questions of fact and matters which are beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. 1 As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the respondent was able to clearly establish its cause of action for the collection of sum of money. According to the Court of Appeals, the petitioners also categorically admitted the existence of their loan and their execution of documents to guaranty its payment. However, the respondent failed to show how it arrived at the amount it was claiming as the remaining outstanding obligation of the petitioners. Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary to afford both parties the opportunity to show the trial court the extent of their obligation to each other.
The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is hereby DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioners the excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0202142-SC-EP dated February 7, 2018. aScITE
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., DEL CASTILLO, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.