7 with the execution of the Continuing Suretyship EMI bound itself solidarily

7 with the execution of the continuing suretyship emi

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 82 pages.

(7) with the execution of the Continuing Suretyship, EMI bound itself solidarily with the principal debtor, Trebel, and the right of BDO to proceed against EMI as surety exists independently of its right to proceed against Trebel; EMI as surety is not even entitled to a notice of the principals default; (8) the Conforme Letter dated June 14, 1999 sent by BDO to EMI showed the consent of Mr. Roberto L. Del Rosario (President) and Ms. Emma M. Del Rosario (Finance Manager) who both signed the said letter which provides for a floating interest rate based on the 364-day Treasury Bill Rates plus 4% or the BDO Reference Rate plus 7.5%; T-Bill Rates are one of the most objective and generally used standard for interest rates; and (9) the liquidated penalty was part of the parties agreement, which will not accrue until Trebel defaults on its obligations with BDO. In the Notice of Pre-Trial [11] dated January 22, 2003, the trial court set the pre-trial conference on February 27, 2003. In compliance with the trial courts directive, the parties submitted their respective pre-trial briefs.
Image of page 13
On March 13, 2003, petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint which further alleged that BDOs petition for issuance of a writ of possession was granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143 in a Decision dated February 18, 2003. EMI reiterated that its rights as surety-mortgagor were violated in the railroaded ex parte proceedings implementing the writ of possession even as EMIs pending motion for reconsideration was still unresolved by Branch 143. [12] In its Order [13] dated June 19, 2003, the trial court denied the motion to admit supplemental complaint on the ground that the matters raised in the supplemental complaint were improper as they pertain to issuances by another branch in a separate petition for writ of possession. At the scheduled pre-trial conference on June 26, 2003, on motion of petitioners, they were allowed to present evidence exparte in view of the absence of BDO which was non-suited. In its motion for reconsideration, BDOs counsel cited extraordinary and non-moving traffic as reason for his failure to arrive on time for the pre-trial conference. The trial court, in an Order dated August 27, 2003, granted the said motion, reinstated the case and set the case again for pre-trial conference on September 26, 2003, later moved to November 10, 2003, and finally rescheduled to January 12, 2004 by agreement of the parties. [14] On July 16, 2003, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 19, 2003 Order denying their motion to admit supplemental complaint; BDO filed its opposition to the said motion. For failure of the petitioners to appear despite due notice at the scheduled pre-trial conference on January 12, 2004, the case was ordered dismissed. [15] In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners counsel claimed that his failure to attend was due to his accidental falling on the stairs of his house in the morning of January 12, 2004, due to which he had to be attended by a hilot . In an Order dated May 7, 2004, the trial court reconsidered the dismissal and scheduled anew the pre-
Image of page 14
Image of page 15

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 82 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • Ms. Eva hernandez
  • Pleading, Trial court, Injunction

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture