08 Development-Bank-of-the-Philippines

Development Bank of the Philippines – Petitioner
Vs.
Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Spouses Julianco and Catalina Centino
- Respondent
G.R. No. 180458 July 30, 2009
Facts :
The Respondent Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd., obtained an

Industrial loan from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP ) in the amount of
Php 500,000.00, The loan was evidenced by a promissory note dated September
15, 1982 with a term of 7 years with quarterly mode of payment in the amount of
Php 31,760.40. with the interest rate of 18% per annum and 8% penalty charge in
case of delinquency. The Loan has collateral by a real estate mortgage on the
parcel of land in Los Banos Laguna with CTC Number T -651217, T- 96878 and T-
96689; and a chattel mortgage over the buildings, equipment and Machineries
therein, in favour of DBP. Two years later , Family Foods was granted an
additional loan of Php 440,000.00 with interest rate of 22% per annum and
penalty of 8%, The loan was likewise secured by the same real estate and chattel
mortgage.
Family Foods failed to pay the loans when they became due. Demand to
pay was made but it was not heeded. DBP filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage with the office of the clerk of court of the Regional
Trial Court ( RTC) of Laguna. A notice of sale, setting the auction sale, was issued
and published in the Barangay., and the properties were awarded to DBP as the
highest bidder. Before the redemption period expired, Family Foods entered in a
contract of lease over the foreclosed properties with DBP for agreed monthly
rentals of Php 12,000.00. Spouse Centino Paid Php 24,000.00 as advanced, but
refused to pay the succeeding rentals. They, likewise, failed to redeem the
foreclosed properties; hence, DBP consolidated its tittle over the same.
Spouses Centino filed a suit for Annulment of Sale with Prayer For issuance
of writ of injunction and restraining order. DBP filed its answer asserting lack of
cause of action, as defence. RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals CA . the validity of the auction
sale and interest rate of the 2 Promissory note. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration, while DBP moved for partial reconsideration of the decision, but
these were both denied by the CA. Petitioner filed a petition for review assailing
the CA ruling, Respondents moved for the outright dismissal of the petition on the
ground that DBP did not attach material portions of the record. They assert that
DBP violate Sec 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE :
Whether or not the petition should be dismissed on the ground that

petitioner failed to attach the material portion of the records.
RULING ;
The court disagrees. As general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential

pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed. This rule, however, is
not petrified. As the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record
that must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the
court to determine the necessity for the copies of pleadings and other
documents. The petitioner substantially complied the procedural requirements of
section 4 Rule 45 of the rules of court, all the attachment provides sufficient basis
to resolve the instant controversy.
The court stresses that cases should be determine on the merits, after all
parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defences,
rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of
justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to
expedite the decision of resolution of cases and other matters pending in the
court. A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather promote substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact, Section 6
Rule 1 state that Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of ensuring the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding.

08 Development-Bank-of-the-Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 Development-Bank-of-the-Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 Development-Bank-of-the-Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development Bank of the Philippines – Petitioner

The Respondent Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd., obtained an

Whether or not the petition should be dismissed on the ground that

The court disagrees. As general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential

You might also like