View full case

SCC CHEMICALS CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 12, 1996, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in favor of the plaintiff, State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI).

SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC), along with its chairman, Danilo Arrieta, and vice president, Pablo Bermundo, obtained a loan from SIHI in the amount of P129,824.48. The loan carried an interest rate of 30% per annum plus penalty charges of 2% per month on the remaining balance of the principal upon non-payment on the due date.

To secure the payment of the loan, Arrieta and Leopoldo Halili executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally to pay the obligation on the maturity date. SCC failed to pay the loan when it matured, prompting SIHI to file a civil case for a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court.

SCC asserted SIHI's lack of cause of action, claiming that the promissory note was null and void. After several hearings and the presentation of evidence by SIHI, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of SIHI. SCC then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. SCC filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied.

Thus, SCC filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, disputing the appellate court's findings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not private respondent proved its cause of action and overcame its burden of proof.

  2. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees to the private respondent was proper.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, which found in favor of the private respondent. This means that the private respondent was able to prove its cause of action and overcome its burden of proof.

  2. The Court of Appeals did not mention the issue of attorney's fees in its decision. Hence, there is no ruling on whether the award of attorney's fees to the private respondent was proper.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The burden of proof rests on the party asserting a claim or defense. In this case, the private respondent successfully proved its cause of action and overcame its burden of proof.

  • The award of attorney's fees is not mentioned in the decision, thus it is unclear whether the award was proper or not.