FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241299. January 7, 2019.]
SPOUSES JOSE AND SOLEDAD ANDAN, petitioners,vs. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241299 [Formerly UDK 16134] (Spouses Jose and Soledad Andan v. Luzon Development Bank). — After review, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for being the wrong mode of appeal. The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, "decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed [to this Court] by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright." 1
In any case, petitioners Spouses Jose and Soledad Andan still failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Decision dated November 3, 2014 and the Order dated December 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 16 in Civil Case No. N-7807. The CA correctly found that petitioners received the proceeds of their loan agreement from respondent Luzon Development Bank and were aware of the true cost of the loan. This finding is supported by the signed statements of loan proceeds and proof of petitioners' payment of monthly amortizations to respondent bank. Petitioners, on the other hand, did not present sufficient evidence to support their following allegations: a) full payment of their loan obligation; b) existence of forgery on the statements of loan proceeds; c) absence of a mortgage contract for the promissory note dated March 6, 2001; d) respondent bank's violation of the Truth in Lending Act; and e) validity of the foreclosure proceedings based on an exorbitant amount. With regard to the interest rate imposed by respondent bank, this Court has ruled that the imposition of 24% interest per annum on a loan agreed upon by both parties is not excessive or unconscionable. 2 Hence, the interest rate imposed by respondent bank on petitioners' loan is valid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated August 1, 2017 and assailed Resolution dated November 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals Special Third Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 104175 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The petitioners' compliance with the Resolution dated April 18, 2018, submitting postal money orders for the payment of the docket and other legal fees, the certification against forum shopping, an explanation why service was not done personally on the Court of Appeals and the adverse party, a joint affidavit giving authority to Atty. Asuncion Abasolo-Pacaldo to cause the preparation of the petition and to sign the verification for their behalf and a compact disc containing the soft copy of the signed petition for review on certiorari, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Philippine Bank of Communications v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017, 818 SCRA 68, 74-75, citing Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc., 677 Phil. 13; 661 SCRA 13 (2011).
2.See Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163433, August 22, 2011, 655 SCRA 707, 716; Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, Dagupan City Branch, G.R. No. 148491, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 79, 85.