Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    206841

    Uploaded by

    VinceOnikaa PerryGermanotta
    This case involves a collection case filed by East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation against Armando Go for an unpaid loan. The RTC ruled in favor of East Oceanic but failed to clearly state the facts and legal basis for holding Go civilly liable for the damages awarded. Specifically, the RTC did not analyze the evidence regarding the outstanding loan balance or cite any legal basis for concluding Go was liable. The decision only addressed issues related to the damages case, not the collection case. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled the RTC decision was void for failing to distinctly express the facts and law it was based on regarding Go's civil liability to East Oceanic in the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    206841

    Uploaded by

    VinceOnikaa PerryGermanotta
    15 views1 page
    This case involves a collection case filed by East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation against Armando Go for an unpaid loan. The RTC ruled in favor of East Oceanic but failed to clearly state the facts and legal basis for holding Go civilly liable for the damages awarded. Specifically, the RTC did not analyze the evidence regarding the outstanding loan balance or cite any legal basis for concluding Go was liable. The decision only addressed issues related to the damages case, not the collection case. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled the RTC decision was void for failing to distinctly express the facts and law it was based on regarding Go's civil liability to East Oceanic in the collection case.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a collection case filed by East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation against Armando Go for an unpaid loan. The RTC ruled in favor of East Oceanic but failed to clearly state the facts and legal basis for holding Go civilly liable for the damages awarded. Specifically, the RTC did not analyze the evidence regarding the outstanding loan balance or cite any legal basis for concluding Go was liable. The decision only addressed issues related to the damages case, not the collection case. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled the RTC decision was void for failing to distinctly express the facts and law it was based on regarding Go's civil liability to East Oceanic in the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    206841

    Uploaded by

    VinceOnikaa PerryGermanotta
    This case involves a collection case filed by East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation against Armando Go for an unpaid loan. The RTC ruled in favor of East Oceanic but failed to clearly state the facts and legal basis for holding Go civilly liable for the damages awarded. Specifically, the RTC did not analyze the evidence regarding the outstanding loan balance or cite any legal basis for concluding Go was liable. The decision only addressed issues related to the damages case, not the collection case. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled the RTC decision was void for failing to distinctly express the facts and law it was based on regarding Go's civil liability to East Oceanic in the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Armando Go vs.

    East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation – 206841-42 – 2018

    Facts:

    Respondent file a collection case against Go for the latter’s loan obligation in view of the dishonor of
    the latter’s issued checks. A case for damages was also instituted by respondent against Go. The two
    cases were consolidated.

    The RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. However, the RTC exclusively resolved the
    issues as to the damages case and made a general conclusion that petitioner is liable for actual
    damages the respondent prayed for.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the assailed RTC Decision is void for having no basis in fact and in law as regards
    his civil liability to East Oceanic.

    Ruling:

    YES. It is void.

    The Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
    therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or
    motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without
    stating the basis therefor. This is also stated in Section 1 of Rule 36 and in an administrative circular
    issued by the SC.

    The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at
    that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he
    lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be
    reversed. In this case, RTC had failed to clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it
    based its ruling insofar as Go's civil liability to East Oceanic is concerned. There is absolutely no
    discussion at all in the assailed Decision as to the RTC's ruling in the collection case, particularly, on
    how it arrived at its conclusion finding Go liable to pay East Oceanic "the sum of P2,814,054.86 plus
    6% interest to be computed from the time of the filing of the complaint. It merely listed the issued to
    be resolved and made a general conclusion that petitioner “did not observe honesty and good faith
    and was therefore dishonest and in bad faith in the performance of his duties and is thus liable to
    plaintiff for damages”.

    The issues it resolved pertain exclusively to the damages case, when it was tasked to decide all the
    issues in both the damages case and the collection case. Hence, the decision is void insofar as the
    collection case is concerned, as it contained neither an analysis of the evidence of East Oceanic and
    Go as regards the outstanding balance of the latter's loan obligation, nor a reference to any legal
    basis in reaching its conclusion as to Go's civil liability to East Oceanic.

    You might also like