PARK v. CHOI

FACTS:

This case involves a complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 22 filed by Petitioner Hun Hyung Park against Respondent Eung Won Choi. Park granted a loan to Choi, who issued a check as payment. However, the check was returned dishonored. Park sent a demand letter to Choi, but he failed to resolve the matter. A complaint was filed against Choi, and the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 294690 before the MeTC. Choi pleaded not guilty and filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was granted by the MeTC. Park appealed to the RTC, which initially granted Park's appeal but later reversed its decision and remanded the case to the MeTC. Park filed a petition with the CA, which dismissed it. Park appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the remand of the case to the MeTC for reception of evidence on the civil aspect was proper.

The case involves a civil dispute between Choi and Park regarding a cash loan. Choi repeatedly requested for postponements, leading the MeTC to declare that he had waived his right to present evidence. Despite warnings from the court, Choi continued to ask for postponements based on various grounds. On the day of the scheduled hearing, Choi requested another postponement, prompting the MeTC to deny the motion and declare his right to present evidence as waived. The MeTC subsequently issued a decision finding Choi civilly liable to Park. Choi appealed to the RTC but failed to present his defense. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision and denied Choi's appeal.

In the subsequent proceedings, Choi filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition with the CA, arguing that his right to due process was violated. The CA reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the MeTC for the reception of evidence. The CA held that a full-blown hearing would guarantee a fair resolution of the case. Some of the postponements were justified. Park filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Park appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's decision and resolution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its decision and resolution.

  2. Whether Choi was deprived of due process.

  3. Whether Choi waived his right to present evidence due to his repeated motions for postponement and failure to present evidence on the scheduled dates.

  4. Whether the denial of Choi's Motion for Reconsideration violated his right to due process.

  5. Whether there was an agreement stipulating interest on the loan.

  6. Whether Choi made partial payment of the loan.

  7. Whether Park is entitled to the full amount of the loan.

  8. Whether or not monetary interest can be imposed in the absence of a written loan agreement.

  9. Whether or not compensatory interest should be imposed in this case.

  10. Whether or not Article 2212 of the Civil Code applies in this case.

  11. What is the applicable rate of interest.

RULING:

  1. The petition is meritorious.

  2. Choi was not deprived of due process.

  3. Yes, Choi waived his right to present evidence. The court granted numerous motions for postponement at Choi's instance, giving him multiple opportunities to present his evidence over a span of almost three years. Despite these opportunities, Choi continuously moved for postponement and failed to present evidence. The court held that there was no deprivation of due process as Choi was given ample opportunity to be heard, but he disregarded such opportunities. Therefore, Choi's right to present evidence was deemed waived.

  4. No, the denial of Choi's Motion for Reconsideration did not violate his right to due process. The court explained that the denial of the motion, which was done two days before the deadline for Choi to file his reply, did not infringe upon due process. Moreover, the court stated that the reply was limited to the issues and arguments raised in Choi's own Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, there was no violation of due process in the denial of Choi's motion.

  5. The Court ruled that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. Since there was no further proof of any express agreement that a certain portion of the loan pertained to interest, the Court ruled that the entire principal amount owed by Choi to Park is the face value of the check.

  6. The Court ruled that Choi failed to prove the fact of payment. A party claiming that an obligation has been discharged by payment has the burden of proving the same. Since Choi only made a mere allegation of payment without presenting any evidence, the Court concluded that Choi still owed Park the full amount of the loan.

  7. The Court ruled that Choi is liable to pay Park the amount of the loan, along with its corresponding legal interest.

  8. No, monetary interest cannot be imposed in the absence of a written loan agreement. Article 1956 of the Civil Code states that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.

  9. Yes, compensatory interest should be imposed in this case. When a debtor incurs delay in the payment of a sum of money, the creditor is entitled to payment of interest as indemnity for damages arising from the delay. Article 2209 of the Civil Code provides that if there is no stipulation as to the rate of interest, the legal interest of 6% per annum will be imposed.

  10. Article 2212 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case because it only applies to accrued interest. It does not apply when there is no stipulated or conventional interest.

  11. The applicable rate of interest is 12% per annum from the date of extrajudicial demand until June 30, 2013, as clarified by Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. From July 1, 2013, the rate of interest is 6% per annum. After the judgment becomes final and executory, the rate of interest is 6% per annum until full payment, in accordance with BSP-MB Circular No. 799 (s. 2013).

PRINCIPLES:

  • The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is within the discretion of the court, based on the consideration that the ends of justice and fairness are served by the grant or denial of the motion. (Sibay v. Bermudez)

  • In considering motions for postponements, the court must consider the reason for the postponement and the merits of the case of the movant. Unless there is grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction, the court's decision on the motion for postponement will not be overturned. (Sibay v. Bermudez)

  • A motion to postpone trial on the ground of absence of evidence can only be granted upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence has been used to procure it. (Section 2 and Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court)

  • Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or denying motions for postponements while constantly mindful of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases. Cases must be promptly disposed to better serve the ends of justice. (Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution)

  • Waiver of right to present evidence - A party's repeated motions for postponement and failure to present evidence despite given opportunities may be deemed as a waiver of their right to present evidence.

  • Due process - There is no deprivation of due process when a party is given an opportunity to be heard through hearings and pleadings, and when they disregard such opportunities, they cannot claim that they were prevented from testifying.

  • Judicial admissions - Judicial admissions made by parties in the course of the trial are conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them, unless it is shown that they were made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

  • In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who alleges a fact. The burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.

  • The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.

  • No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.

  • No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing (Article 1956, Civil Code).

  • When a debtor incurs delay in the payment of a sum of money, the creditor is entitled to payment of interest as indemnity for damages arising from the delay (Article 2209, Civil Code).

  • Article 2212 of the Civil Code applies only to conventional obligations containing a stipulation on interest (Zobel v. City of Manila).

  • In the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments is 12% per annum computed from default. From July 1, 2013, the rate of interest is 6% per annum (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals).