SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224580. April 3, 2019.]
MARIA THERESA COMMERCIAL, INC. AS REPRESENTED BY JOSE LIM ONG, AND JOSE LIM ONG AS SURETY, petitioners, vs.BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224580 — MARIA THERESA COMMERCIAL, INC. as represented by JOSE LIM ONG, and JOSE LIM ONG as surety, petitioners, versus BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC., respondent.
The material facts, as shown by the records, are as follows:
Respondent Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO) extended several loans and credit accommodations in favor of petitioner Maria Theresa Commercial, Inc. (MTCI). 1 These accommodations were secured by a Continuing Surety Agreement executed by MTCI's representative and co-petitioner Jose Lim Ong (Ong).
MTCI defaulted, prompting BDO to send petitioners MTCI and Ong (collectively, Petitioners) several demand letters seeking payment of the latter's outstanding obligations amounting to P35,470,099.42. Petitioners failed to heed BDO's demands. Hence, BDO filed against Petitioners a complaint for sum of money (Complaint) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In the Complaint, BDO prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and judgment directing Petitioners to pay their outstanding obligations with interest and attorney's fees.
On September 15, 2005, the RTC issued an Order 2 granting BDO's application for writ of preliminary attachment. Subsequently, summons was served on Petitioners by way of substituted service, a copy of which had been left at MTCI's place of business with a certain Lisa Calas, a senior employee.
On October 19, 2007, Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction, considering that BDO failed to show that personal service of summons was impossible. While the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, it directed its sheriff to personally serve alias summons upon Petitioners. However, the sheriff failed to do so despite earnest efforts. Thus, BDO filed an ex parte motion to allow it to cause service of said alias summons by publication, which the RTC granted.
Subsequently, Petitioners assailed the RTC's jurisdiction anew, claiming that BDO's ex parte motion lacked the necessary Affidavit of Merit required by the Rules of Court. Resolving the issue, the RTC issued a Joint Order 3 dated April 12, 2011, holding that jurisdiction over Petitioners had been validly acquired, as BDO substantially complied with the rules governing summons.
Petitioners questioned the Joint Order through a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed said petition through its Amended Decision 4 dated November 9, 2015. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was later denied.
Unsatisfied, Petitioners filed the present Petition, maintaining RTC's lack of jurisdiction.
Pending resolution of the Petition, the parties, assisted by their respective counsels, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Based on Compromise Agreement (JointMotion), the pertinent provisions of the Compromise Agreement 5 read:
1. This Agreement shall be the full and final settlement of all claims and counterclaims, liabilities, causes of action, suits, damages, costs and expenses including, but not limited to, legal fees and expenses, that either party has or shall have, either now or in the future, against the other, arising out of or relating to [the cases subject of the present Petition].
2. [Petitioners and its related corporation, MTC Optomedic, Inc.] shall pay [BDO and BDO Leasing and Finance, Inc.] the amount of [Php20,000,000.00] under the following terms and conditions x x x
xxx xxx xxx
3. The parties thus hereby bound themselves to release, remise, waive and forever discharge each other, from any and all actions, whether civil, criminal, administrative or otherwise, or from any claim of any kind or character in connection with or arising out of [the cases subject of the present Petition]. 6
In the Joint Motion, the parties prayed, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully pray unto this Honorable Court for the APPROVAL of the Compromise Agreement dated 9 February 2017 x x x and RENDER JUDGMENT in accordance therewith relative to the above-entitled case docketed as SC G.R. No. 224580 x x x.
Other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 7
Hence, consistent with the Court's rulings in World Wide Travel Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals8 and Tenchavez v. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Co., 9 and in deference to the parties' obvious intention of settling the dispute amicably, the Court resolves to APPROVE the Compromise Agreement dated February 9, 2017 and render judgment in accordance therewith. The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with all the terms and stipulations contained therein. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The loans and credit accommodations subject of the present Petition are as follows: (i) Credit Line Agreement dated July 30, 2001; (ii) Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated April 11, 2002 with Amendment to the Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated February 24, 2003; and (iii) Supplementary Agreement dated June 27, 2002. See rolls, p. 33.
2.Rollo, pp. 94-95. Penned by Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante.
3.Id. at 78-80. Penned by Presiding Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
4.Id. at 46-50. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
5.Id. at 323-327.
6.Id. at 324.
7.Id. at 322.
8. 172 Phil. 118 (1978).
9. 126 Phil. 542 (1967).