GR 195317; (April, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195317 ; April 3, 2013
Spouses Weltchie Raymundo and Emily Raymundo, Petitioners, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, substituted by Philippine Distressed Asset Asia Pacific [SPV-AMC] 2, Inc., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Raymundo availed of loan packages from respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in 1996 for their resort complex, securing them with real and chattel mortgages. Due to non-payment, the mortgages were foreclosed. On October 16, 1998, petitioners filed a Complaint for annulment of loan documents. LBP moved to dismiss. During pre-trial, petitioners requested suspension to explore loan restructuring or settlement, leading the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to archive the case on June 28, 2001. On April 9, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The RTC denied the motion on May 9, 2003, finding it intended to delay proceedings and that it changed the cause of action from annulment to specific performance. The RTC denied reconsideration on July 18, 2003, reiterating the delay tactic. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC orders on September 16, 2009. During Supreme Court proceedings, LBP was substituted by Philippine Distressed Asset Asia Pacific (SPV-AMC) 2, Inc. (PDAS2) after a sale of assets. PDAS2 later manifested withdrawal of its opposition to the admission of the amended complaint, citing inordinate delay and desiring to resume proceedings. Petitioners joined this prayer.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC should admit the petitioners’ Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 7, is DIRECTED to ADMIT the Amended and Supplemental Complaint and to proceed with the proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 5613 and 7398 with utmost dispatch. The Court noted the mutual agreement of the parties to allow admission, the withdrawal of opposition by PDAS2, and the inordinate delay of over eight years in the pre-trial stage. Emphasizing that court litigation is a search for truth and should proceed, the Court held that a liberal interpretation to allow parties full opportunity to adduce proofs is best to ferret out truth, and that delay no longer justified opposing the petition.