FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255109. March 23, 2022.]
CLAUDIA J. JALANDONI, ANDRES JAMORA and JENNIFER JALANDONI, petitioners, vs.SOLIDBANK/METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 255109 (Claudia J. Jalandoni, Andres Jamora and Jennifer Jalandoni v. Solidbank/Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated December 10, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated August 27, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 06207. The assailed CA Decision affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated December 17, 2015 of Branch 42, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 03-12188. The RTC ordered Claudia J. Jalandoni (Claudia), Andres Jamora (Andres) and Jennifer Jalandoni (Jennifer) (collectively, petitioners), binding themselves as solidary debtors with JJM Corporation, to pay Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank)/Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) the amount of P1,321,285.66 representing petitioners' outstanding obligation. The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 5
The Antecedents
On August 28, 1996, Claudia executed a Chattel Mortgage 6 in favor of Solidbank to secure a loan of P2,000,000.00. On August 14, 2000, Solidbank assigned its assets to Metrobank, effectively making the latter the creditor of Claudia. 7
On August 10, 2001, Claudia and Andres, representing JJM Corporation, borrowed from Metrobank the amount of P1,321,285.66 under a promissory note. 8 On the same day, Claudia, Andres, and Jennifer also executed a Continuing Surety Agreement 9 in favor of Metrobank, binding themselves as solidary debtors with JJM Corporation for the aforesaid amount. 10
Petitioners defaulted in their amortization payments. Thereafter, Metrobank sent petitioners a Demand Letter 11 which sought payment of their outstanding obligation amounting to P1,387,456.86. However, petitioners failed to heed Metrobank's demand. Metrobank thus filed against petitioners a Complaint for Sum of Money with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment 12 before Branch 42, RTC, Bacolod City. 13
By way of special and affirmative defenses, petitioners alleged, among others, that they have no privity of contract with and obligations to Metrobank as their transaction was with Solidbank. They further asserted that they did not receive any demand letter from Metrobank. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On December 17, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Metrobank and ordered petitioners to: (1) solidarily pay Metrobank the amount of P1,387,456.86 with legal interest rate of 12% per annum from February 28, 2003 until full payment thereof; (2) pay Metrobank the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (3) to pay the costs of suit. 15
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 16 of the RTC Decision, but the RTC denied it in an Order 17 dated May 17, 2016.
Petitioners subsequently appealed 18 to the CA. They argued that the RTC erred in admitting the documentary evidence of Metrobank which were not original copies but merely machine copies, in violation of the Best Evidence Rule under the Rules of Court. 19
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 20 dated December 10, 2018, the CA denied the appeal. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, 21 but the CA denied it in a Resolution 22 dated August 27, 2020.
Unsatisfied, petitioners filed the present petition maintaining the same argument they raised before the CA.
The Court's Ruling
Pending resolution of the petition, the parties, through their respective counsels, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Satisfaction of Judgment 23 dated October 14, 2021, which reads:
COME NOW the parties, through their undersigned counsels and to the Honorable Supreme Court, jointly move for the dismissal of the above-captioned case with prejudice on the ground that the claims of the [r]espondents against JJM CORP., ANDRES JAMORA, CLAUDIA J. JALANDONI and JENNIFER J. JALANDONI are now fully paid and satisfied after receiving the amount of THREE MILLION (P3,000,000.00) PESOS from the [p]etitioners, as per BPI Manager's Check No. 30518 dated September 30, 2021. 24
Finding the terms of the Satisfaction of Judgment not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order, and in deference to the parties' obvious intention of settling the dispute amicably, the Court resolves to GRANT the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Satisfaction of Judgment. Accordingly, the instant case is DEEMED CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 7-20.
2. Id. at 27-36; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
3. Id. at 41-43; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
4. Id. at 118-120; penned by Judge Fernando R. Elumba.
5. Id. at 121-126.
6. Id. at 57-58.
7. Id. at 28.
8. Id. at 61-62.
9. Id. at 59-60.
10. Id. at 28.
11. Id. at 70.
12. Id. at 45-54.
13. Id. at 8.
14. Id. at 29.
15. Id. at 120.
16. Id. at 121-126.
17. Id. at 133.
18. Id. at 134.
19. Id. at 142-146.
20. Id. at 27-36.
21. Id. at 37-39.
22. Id. at 41-43.
23. Id. at 192.
24. Id.