102.) Case Name: RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs.

Spouses By: Joyce

VICENTE and MA. SUMILANG DEL ROSARIO Topic: Demurrer to Evidence
GR No. 138739
Date: July 6, 2000
Facts

Spouses del Rosario jointly and severally executed, in favor of Radiowealth a Promissory Note for P138,948.
Sps. del Rosario defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they failed to pay their obligations
under their PN.
Radiowealth filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money before the RTC-Manila
During the trial, Famatico, the credit and collection officer of Radiowealth, presented in evidence Sps. del Rosarios
check payments, the demand letter, the customers ledger card of the Sps. del Rosario, and Metropolitan Bank
dishonor slips. However, Famatico admitted that he did not have personal knowledge of the transaction of any of the
documentary evidence, which had merely been endorsed to him.
Thereafter, Sps. del Rosario filed a Demurrer to Evidence for alleged lack of cause of action. (RTC agrees to the
insufficiency of evidcnce)
RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of Radiowealth to substantiate its claims, the evidence it had presented being
merely hearsay. (i.e, RTC agrees to demurrer to evidence)
On appeal, CA reversed the decision of RTC and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- According to the CA, Sps. del Rosario established their indebtedness to Radiowealth, on the grounds that they
admitted the genuineness and due execution of the PN, and the demand letter. Even if the Famatico had no personal
knowledge, they would still be admissible because the purpose of which the evidence were produced is merely to
establish the fact that the documents were in fact made.
Radiowealth contends that if a demurrer to evidence is reversed on appeal, Sps. del Rosario should be deemed
to have waived the right to present evidence, and the CA should render judgment on the basis of the evidence
submitted by Radiowealth.
Sps. del Rosario argue that the petitioner was not necessarily entitled to its claim, simply on the ground that they lost
their right to present evidence in support of their defense when the Demurrer to Evidence was reversed on appeal.

Issue/s
WON CA erred in ordering the remand of the case to the CA instead of rendering judgment on the basis of Radiowealths
evidence. Yes. (CA correctly reversed the RTC BUT it erred in remanding the case for further proceedings.)
Ruling:

Defendants who present a demurrer to the plaintiffs evidence retain the right to present their own evidence, if the trial court
disagrees with them. However, if the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both of
them(RTC and defendant del Rosario) and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants (Sps del Rosario) 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.

In the case at bar, the trial court, acting on Spouses del Rosario demurrer to evidence, dismissed the Complaint on the ground
that the Radiowealth had adduced mere hearsay evidence. However, on appeal, the CA reversed the RTC because the genuineness
and the due execution of the disputed pieces of evidence had in fact been admitted by Sps del Rosario.

Applying Rule 33, CA should have rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Radiowealth. While it
correctly ruled that the documentary evidence submitted by the Radiowealth 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, the Court
agrees with Radiowealth that the CA had sufficient evidence on record to decide the collection suit. A remand is logically
unnecessary on the basis of the facts on record.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is MODIFIED in that the remand is SET ASIDE.
Doctrine Notes