Radiowealth Finance Corporation v.

Del Rosario
G.R. No. 138739, 6 July 2000
DOCTRINE:

Actions; Demurrer to Evidence; Pleadings and Practice; Defendants who present a demurrer to
the plaintiff’s evidence retain the right to present their own evidence, if the trial court disagrees
with them, but if the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees
with both of them and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants lose the right to present their
own evidence; Demurrer aims to discourage prolonged litigations.—In other words, defendants
who present a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence retain the right to present their own evidence,
if the trial court disagrees with them; if the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the
appellate court disagrees with both of them and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants lose
the right to present their own evidence. The appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the case
and render judgment on the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to discourage prolonged
litigations.

Remand of Cases; Where the Court of Appeals reversed a demurrer to evidence rendered by a
trial court, it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by plaintiff instead
of remanding the case for further proceedings.—Applying Rule 33, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules
of Court, the CA should have rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the
petitioner. While, the appellate court correctly ruled that “the documentary evidence submitted
by the [petitioner] should have been allowed and appreciated x x x,” and that “the petitioner
presented quite a number of documentary exhibits x x x enumerated in the appealed order,” we
agree with petitioner that the CA had sufficient evidence on record to decide the collection suit.
A remand is not only frowned upon by the Rules, it is also logically unnecessary on the basis of
the facts on record.

TOPIC:

Section 1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court

FACTS:

On March 2, 1991, Spouses Del Rosario, herein respondents-spouses jointly and severally

executed, signed and delivered in favor of herein petitioner a promissory note for P138,948.
Unfortunately, respondents defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands,
they failed to pay their obligations under their promissory note.

On June 7, 1993 petitioner filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, During the trial,
Jasmer Famatico, the credit and collection officer of petitioner, presented in evidence the
respondents' check payments, the demand letter dated July 12, 1991, the customer's ledger card
for the respondents, another demand letter and Metropolitan Bank dishonor slips. After the
petitioner offered its evidence and rested its case, respondents filed a demurrer to evidence for
alleged lack of cause of action.
On November 4, 1994, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure of petitioner to
substantiate its claims, the evidence it had presented being merely hearsay. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Aggrieved, Radiowealth filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision
rendered by the appellate court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals patently erred in ordering the remand of this
case to the trial court instead of rendering judgment on the basis of petitioner’s evidence.

RULING:

The petition meritorious. While the CA correctly reversed the trial court, it erred in remanding
the case for further proceedings.

As provided by Rule 33, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the CA should have rendered
judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The Court agreed with
petitioner that the CA had sufficient evidence on record to decide the collection suit. A remand is
not only frowned upon by the Rules, it is also logically unnecessary on the basis of the facts on
record.

The reviewing court cannot remand the matter for additional procedures where an appealed
decision overturning a trial court's issuance of a demurrer to evidence. Instead, it should base its
decision on the plaintiff's submitted evidence. Given that the defendants in this case
acknowledged proper execution of the Promissory Note in both their Answer and during the
pretrial proceedings, the appeal court ought to have made its decision based on that Note and the
other pieces of evidence presented during the trial.

As amended, the pertinent provision of Rule 33 reads as follows:

"SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence. -- After the plaintiff has completed the

presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground
that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his
motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to
have waived the right to present evidence.”

In Villanueva Transit v. Javellana, the Court stated the following on the consequences of a
demurrer to evidence: "The rationale for the rule and doctrine is clear and logical. The defendant
is allowed to move for a dismissal (i.e., demur to the plaintiff's evidence) on the grounds that the
plaintiff has not established a right to relief based on the facts as established and the applicable
law, without giving up his right to offer evidence in the event that his motion is denied. The case
will still be on the trial court's docket if it decides against the dismissal motion, meaning it finds
that the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient for a judgment award in the absence of contradictory
evidence. At that point, the trial court should proceed to hear and receive the defendant's
testimony so that all the relevant facts and evidence from the contending parties can be properly
presented to it for decision as well as to the appellate courts, in the event of an appeal. There is
no loss. The doctrine is only in line with the established procedural precepts in the conduct of
trials that the trial court liberally receive all proffered evidence at the trial in order to render its
decision with all potentially relevant evidence in the record, ensuring that the appellate courts
upon appeal have all the material before them necessary to make a correct judgment, and
avoiding the need to remand the case for retrial or reception of improperly excluded evidence.
The rule, however, imposes the requirement that the movant forfeits his right to present evidence
on his behalf and is deemed to have elected to stand on the inadequacy of the plaintiff's case and
evidence if his demurrer is granted by the trial court and the order of dismissal is reversed on
appeal. In this situation, the appellate court that overturns the dismissal order will proceed to
make a merits decision based on the plaintiff's evidence. In other words, if the trial court rejects
the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence, they still have the option to present their own
evidence. However, if the trial court grants their request, but the appellate court rejects both of
their arguments and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants forfeit the option to do so. Since
a demurrer aims to prevent drawn-out legal battles, the appellate court must also decide the case
and issue a decision on the merits.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision is MODIFIED in that the
remand is SET ASIDE and respondents are ordered TO PAY P138,948, plus 2.5 percent penalty
charge per month beginning April 2, 1991 until fully paid, and 10 percent of the amount due as
attorney’s fees. No costs.

SO ORDERED.