You are on page 1of 1

FACTS:

The [petitioners] obtained a loan from [respondent] Rural Bank of Bolinao, Inc., with office address at Poblacion, Bolinao, Pangasinan, in the sum of
I!"T#$%& T"%'()&* P(%( +P,-,....../, on %ctober 0., -1,2, as e3idenced b4 a promissor4 note dul4 signed and e5ecuted b4 the herein
[petitioners] spouses )nnabelle dela Pe6a and )drian 7illareal at the place of business of the [respondent] as a banking institution in the presence of the
witnesses of the [respondent], namel4 8ederico 8. 8ataba4 and 9a5imo Tiangsing who are both emplo4ees of the [respondent], that the [petitioners]
ha3e paid a part of the principal loan with a remaining outstanding balance of P::,::0.;:, but has from then defaulted in the last pa4ment of the loan
which has and ha3e matured on %ctober -<, -1,< +5h. =)=/. )ccordingl4, letters of demand b4 9ateo !. 8aasi, then !eneral 9anager of the
respondent Rural Bank of Bolinao, Inc., were sent b4 registered mail to [petitioners] at their gi3en address but turned deaf eared +5h. =8= > =*=/? that,
as a result of the utter disregard and failures of the [petitioners] in pa4ment of their long o3erdue loan, the [respondent] was constrained to engage the
legal ser3ices of a law4er in the filing of the instant case for collection and has incurred litigation e5penses and attorne4@s fees? that, together with
collection fees which [respondent] is legall4 entitled to and the remaining unpaid balance up to the present? that the grand total amount of mone4 the
[petitioners] are obliged to pa4 [respondent] as of %ctober -:, -11A, as reflected in the (tatement of )ccount prepared and submitted b4 Bito 8. )lteCo,
Bookkeeper of the [respondent] Rural Bank is Two "undred Twent4$%ne Thousand (i5 "undred and (i5t4$(e3en Pesos and (i5 8enta3os
+P00-,;;:..;/$ 5h. =B=
2<
D"RE%R, clearl4 3iewed in the light of all the foregoing considerations, the court hereb4 renders Fudgment in fa3or of the [respondent] and against
the petitioners, to wit:
-. %rdering the [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 the [respondent] the remaining principal +obligation/ loan in the sum of P::.:00.;:
outstanding as of %ctober -:, -11A, plus interest of 2G per annum, until full pa4ment of the principal loan is made thereof?
0. %rdering [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 the [respondent] the interest due as of %ctober -:, -11A, in the sum of P-.A, 1A-.1-?
2. %rdering the [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 the [respondent] the penalt4 due as of %ctober -:, -11A, in the sum of P0A,;:..0-?
<. %rdering the [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 the [respondent] the litigation e5penses in the sum of PP<,A.....
A. %rdering the [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 attorne4@s fees in the sum of P:,:00.0:?
;. %rdering the [petitioners] to pa4 Fointl4 and se3erall4 the [respondent] the collection fees in the sum ofPA....? and
:. To pa4 the cost of the suit?
(% %R*R*.
2A
ISSUE:
Dhether or not the reHuisites of (ec -<, )rt , ha3e been satisfied in the decision of the 9T8. II &%.
RULING:
De agree with the petitioners that the abo3e decision did not conform to the reHuirements of the 8onstitution and of the Rules of 8ourt. The decision
contained no reference to an4 legal basis in reaching its conclusions. It did not cite an4 legal authorit4 or principle to support its conclusion that
petitioners are liable to pa4 respondent the amount claimed including interests, penalties, attorne4@s fees and the costs of suit.
Thus, the 8ourt has struck down as 3oid, decisions of lower courts and e3en of the 8ourt of )ppeals whose careless disregard of the constitutional
behest e5posed their sometimes ca3alier attitude not onl4 to their magisterial responsibilities but likewise to their a3owed fealt4 to the 8onstitution.
Thus, we nullified or deemed to ha3e failed to compl4 with (ection -<, )rticle 7III of the 8onstitution, a decision, resolution or order which: contained no
anal4sis of the e3idence of the parties nor reference to an4 legal basis in reaching its conclusions? contained nothing more than a summar4 of the
testimonies of the witnesses of both parties? con3icted the accused of libel but failed to cite an4 legal authorit4 or principle to support conclusions that the
letter in Huestion was libelous? consisted merel4 of one +-/ paragraph with mostl4 sweeping generaliCations and failed to support its conclusion of
parricide? consisted of fi3e +A/ pages, three +2/ pages of which were Huotations from the labor arbiter@s decision including the dispositi3e portion and
barel4 a page +two [0] short paragraphs of two [0] sentences each/ of its own discussion or reasonings? was merel4 based on the findings of another
court sans transcript of stenographic notes? or failed to e5plain the factual and legal bases for the award of moral damages.