This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the trial court gave petitioners every chance to air their side and even reconsidered its first order declaring petitioners in default. Notwithstanding, petitioners and their counsel failed to take advantage of such opportunity and disregarded the legal processes, by continuously failing to appear during the pre-trial of the case without any valid cause. Clearly, when the trial court allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte due to the continued failure of the petitioners to attend the pre-trial conference, it did so in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and with due regard to the constitutional guarantee of due process. Plainly, petitioners cannot complain that they were denied due process. What the fundamental law prohibits is total absence of opportunity to be heard. When a party has been afforded opportunity to present his side, he cannot feign denial of due process.[10] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Whether an interest rate or penalty charge is reasonable or iniquitous is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts.[28] In determining what is iniquitous and unconscionable, courts must consider the circumstances of each case,[29] for what may be just in one case may be iniquitous and unconscionable in another.[30] Thus, while this Court sustained the validity of a 21% per annum interest in Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation,[31] it reduced an 18% per annum interest rate to 12% per annum in Trade & Investment Development Corporation of the Phils. v. Roblett:[32] | |||||