G.R. No. 138739. July 6, 2000.

*
RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. Spouses VICENTE and MA. SUMILANG DEL
ROSARIO, respondents.

FACTS:

The facts of this case are undisputed. On March 2, 1991, Spouses Vicente and Maria
Sumilang del Rosario (herein respondents), jointly and severally executed, signed and delivered in
favor of Radiowealth Finance Company (herein petitioner), a Promissory Note for P138,948. Payable
in several installment, Respondent default in their obligation as a consequence of which petitioner filed
a complaint against them for collection of some of money. After plaintiff had rested, respondent filed a
demurrer to evidence for alleged lack of cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint for
failure of petitioner to substantiate its claim, as it found petitioners evidence hearsay.

On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court. It ruled that the trial courts grant of demurrer was
erroneous because the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note and other evidence
had in fact been admitted by defendant. However, it remanded the case for further proceeding instead
of resolving it on the merits.

Radiowealth filed the present petition for review assailing the oder for remand of the case for further
proceedings. It contends that if a demurrer to evidence is reversed on appeal, the defendant should be
deem waived the right to present evidence, and the appellate court should render the judgment on the
basis of the evidence submitted by plaintiff. A remand to the trial court “for further proceeding” would
be an outright defiance of rule 33, section 1 of the rules of court. On other hand, respondents argue
that petitioner was not necessarily entitled to its claim smply 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.
The stress that the CA merely found the indebted to petitioner but was silent on when their obligation
became due and demandable.

ISSUE:

WON The CA patently erred in ordering the remand of this case to the trial court instead of
rendering judgment on the basis of petitioner’s evidence.” (legal effect of the Demurrer to Evidence)

HELD:
In the case at bar, the trial court, acting on respondents’ demurrer to evidence, dismissed the
Complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had adduced mere hearsay evidence. However, on appeal,
the appellate court reversed the trial court because the genuineness and the due execution of the
disputed pieces of evidence had in fact been admitted by defendants.

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.
DISPOSITION:
the Petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision is MODIFIED in that the remand is SET ASIDE
and the respondent order to pay their obligation plus penalty.

RULE33.DSP