FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221219. August 17, 2022.]
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, petitioner,vs. E.V. ILANO ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221219 (Philippine Savings Bank v. E.V. Ilano Enterprises, Inc.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 26 January 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated 22 October 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130893. The CA upheld the Order 4 dated 29 April 2013 of the Branch 58, Regional Trial Court, Makati (RTC) in Civil Case No. 09-1126 denying petitioner Philippines Savings Bank's (PSBank) Omnibus Motion 1. For Clarification; 2. To Admit Attached Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam; 3. To Reconsider the Order 5 dated January 28, 2013 (Omnibus Motion).
Antecedents
This case stemmed from a Petition for Consignation filed by respondent E.V. Ilano Enterprises, Inc. (E.V. Ilano) against PSBank. 6
E.V. Ilano, through its President and representative, Mr. Edilberto Ilano, executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage 7 dated 19 October 2007 in favor of Abba Motors, Inc. (Abba Motors) for the purchase of a motor vehicle, a 2007 Hyundai Tucson, in the principal amount of P1,096,560.00. The loan was payable in 48 monthly installments at P22,845.00 each commencing on 05 November 2007. 8
Pursuant to the Deed of Assignment embodied in the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage, Abba Motors assigned all of its title, rights, and interests over the said promissory note to PSBank. According to PSBank, E.V. Ilano failed to pay two succeeding and subsequent installments as well as other stipulated charges. Thus, E.V. Ilano allegedly violated Section 6 of the said Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage when it failed to procure and renew the insurance policy for the subject motor vehicle for the years 2008-2009. 9
As a result of the alleged violation, PSBank declared the whole obligation of E.V. Ilano due and demandable. This prompted the bank to send letters to E.V. Ilano demanding payment of the latter's outstanding loan balance in the amount of P598,344.82, excluding penalties and other charges as of October 2009. 10
On the other hand, E.V. llano claimed that in response to the demands of PSBank, it issued a letter to the latter requesting for an explanation as to the status of its loan and to give details as to the application of its payments. It also tendered the amount of P66,000.00 with a warning that it will be constrained to deposit and consign the same to the proper courts in case of PSBank's refusal to accept the same. 11
Eventually, E.V. Ilano filed a Petition for Consignation with the RTC. On 15 October 2012, after consideration of the parties' evidence, the RTC issued a Decision, granting E.V. Ilano's petition and allowing it to deposit the amount of P66,000.00 representing the amount due as of 05 December 2009, which PSBank refused to accept without cause despite valid tender of payment. Moreover, the RTC ordered PSBank to pay E.V. Ilano P500,000.00 as attorney's fee plus P3,500.00 per court appearance and P500.00 for gasoline allowance. 12
On 22 October 2012, PSBank received the RTC Decision. 13 Allegedly, on 06 November 2012, PSBank filed a Motion for Reconsideration 14 of the said decision through registered mail, which was received by the RTC on 14 November 2012. Said motion was set for hearing and on 23 November 2012, the RTC issued an Order 15 expunging PSBank's Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that it was not filed within the 15-day reglementary period. 16
PSBank filed a Motion to Set Aside Order 17 contending that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on 06 November 2012, as shown by the Certification issued by the Makati City Central Post Office. In an Order 18 dated 28 January 2013, the RTC denied PSBank's Motion to Set Aside Order. Thus, on 19 February 2013, PSBank filed an Omnibus Motion 19 praying that a clarification of the Order 20 dated 28 January 2013 be made, that the RTC resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on the merits; and that the attached Notice of Appeal be granted, and in case the RTC confirmed that the Motion for Reconsideration was expunged from the records, that the same be reversed and set aside and a new one be issued declaring the said motion to remain in the records of the case. 21
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC, in its Order 22 dated 29 April 2013, denied PSBank's Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. 23 According to the trial court, the Certification issued by Makati Central Post Office, allegedly presented to prove that PSBank's Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed, is a mere photocopy. As such, the same has no probative value. 24
Thus, PSBank filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition 25 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA raising the lone issue of whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying its Omnibus Motion dated 19 February 2013. 26
Ruling of the CA
The CA, in its Decision 27 dated 26 January 2015, denied PSBank's petition for lack of merit. It ruled that PSBank has the burden of proof to prove the timely filing of its Motion for Reconsideration. However, PSBank failed to discharge its burden. 28
According to the CA, the filing of pleadings through registered mail is allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the date of their filing is the date stamped on the envelope or the registry receipt. However, in this case, PSBank submitted as evidence mere photocopies of the: 1) registry receipt attached to the upper right-hand side of the Motion for Reconsideration; and 2) Certification from the postmaster of Makati Central Post Office. 29 The said Certification plays a crucial part in verifying and disclosing the date of filing of the said Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, being a mere photocopy, the same is inadmissible as proof and considered as mere scrap of paper without any evidentiary value. Given these, the CA said that the judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he expunged from the records PSBank's Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time. 30
PSBank filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the CA, in its Resolution dated 22 October 2015, for lack of merit. Consequently, PSBank filed the present Petition.
Issue
The only issue here for the resolution of this Court is whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it expunged from the records PSBank's Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time.
Ruling of the Court
The Petition has no merit.
At the outset, the Petition raises question of fact which is beyond the coverage of a petition for review on certiorari. We emphasize that "[o]nly questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari." 31 Section 1, Rule 45 categorically states that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. 32 Although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to this rule, exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties so this Court may evaluate and review the facts of the case. In any event, even in such cases, this Court retains full discretion on whether to review the factual findings of the CA. 33
Here, the issue of whether PSBank filed the Motion for Reconsideration in time involves a question of fact as it necessarily requires a review of the evidence presented on when the motion was actually filed. 34 We emphasize that the CA adopted the factual findings of the RTC in ruling that PSBank's Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. It is established that "[f]actual findings of the lower court, more so when supported by the evidence [x x x] command not only respect but even finality and are binding on the Court." 35
The Court also finds that the RTC and the CA's factual findings are supported by the evidence and thus binding on this Court. PSBank has not alleged, substantiated, and proved any of the exceptions for this Court to evaluate the facts. PSBank has also failed to show that the CA gravely abused its discretion in its appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties and in its factual findings to warrant a review of factual issues by this Court. 36 Significantly, Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirements on the contents of the petition, which include the mandate to only raise questions of law, shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. 37
In any event, even if We consider the issue submitted by PSBank, the Petition is still unmeritorious. Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court then in force, 38 provides that where pleadings are filed by registered mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope, or the registry receipt shall be considered as the date of filing. Based on this provision, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: (1) from the post office stamp on the envelope, or (2) from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. 39
In this case, to prove that it filed the motion on time, PSBank merely presented photocopies of the registry receipt attached to the upper right-hand side of the Motion for Reconsideration, and a Certification from the postmaster of Makati Central Post Office. 40 We stress that the basic evidentiary rule is that the party who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it. 41 Mere photocopy of the registry receipt in this case militates against PSBank's position because there is no indication of its authenticity. In fact, a mere photocopy lacks assurance of its genuineness, considering that photocopies can easily be tampered with. 42 In the same manner, the CA also found that PSBank only submitted a photocopy of the Certification from the postmaster of Makati Central Post Office, which, similar to the photocopy of the registry receipt, is devoid of evidentiary value.
To be sure, the date of filing is determinable either from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt. The stamp or registry receipt "carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed; in this sense, it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise, and should be distinguished from a mere written record or note secured by a party to prove a self-serving point. This latter record or note, not being a regular record in the usual course of business, is open to easy fabrication and cannot be accepted and trusted at face value." 43
As a last-ditch effort, PSBank relies on a liberal construction of the Rules of Procedure in order to bring about substantial justice and appeal to this Court's exercise of equity jurisdiction. However, We are not convinced.
"It must always be remembered that the liberality with which We exercise our equity jurisdiction is always anchored on the basic consideration that the same must be warranted by the circumstances obtaining in each case. Aside from the discussion above, there is no showing herein of any exceptional circumstance that may rationalize a digression from the application of the rules." 44 Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to each other; or, as has often been "suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants. This is not exactly true; the concept is much misunderstood. As a matter of fact, the policy of the courts is to give effect to both kinds of law, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties. Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court." 45
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Philippine Savings Bank's Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 11 December 2015 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 26 January 2015 and Resolution dated 22 October 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130893 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., no part; Gaerlan J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated 19 July 2022.
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. 38-293.
2. Id. at 61-67; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
3. Id. at 69-70; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
4. Id. at 141; penned by Judge Eugene C. Paras.
5. Id. at 17.
6. Id. at 15.
7. Id. at 15-16.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 16.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 16-17.
13. Id. at 18.
14. Id. at 17.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 17-18.
22. Id. at 141.
23. Id. at 17-18.
24. Id. at 203.
25. Id. at 18.
26. Id.
27. Id. at 61-67.
28. Id. at 66.
29. Id. at 18-19.
30. Id.
31. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 6; Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016).
32. Magdiwang Realty Corp. v. Manila Banking Corp., 694 Phil. 392, 404 (2012).
33. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 6; Pascual v. Burgos, supra.
34. See Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, 610 Phil. 444, 452 (2009).
35. See Saclolo v. Marquito, G.R. No. 229243, 26 June 2019.
36. Pascual v. Burgos, supra.
37. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1; Heirs of Racaza v. Spouses Abay-Abay, 687 Phil. 584, 590 (2012).
38. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1997).
39. Bismonte v. Golden Sunset Resort and Spa, 842 Phil. 575, 587 (2018).
40. Rollo, pp. 18-19.
41. Republic v. Martinez, G.R. Nos. 224438-40, 03 September 2020.
42. Id.
43. See Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, supra.
44. Id.
45. Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, 588 Phil. 61, 85 (2008), citing Tupas v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 628 (1991).