Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 143338 : February 08, 2010] THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION [SOLIDBANK] V. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS INC., NARCISO G. MORALES AND SPOUSE:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated 08 February 2010:

G.R. No. 143338 (The Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation [Solidhank] v. Del Monte Motor Works Inc., Narciso G. Morales and Spouse).


On June 7, 2006, the Court resolved to DENY with FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein respondents, Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., Narciso G. Morales and spouse, because the basic issues raised in said Motion had been duly passed upon in the July 29, 2005 Decision and there was' no substantial argument adduced to wan-ant the reconsideration sought.^[1]

Respondents, in a Manifestation^[2]dated July 20, 2006, informed the Court of "alleged supervening events and material facts that have turned up during the appeal process but which were not accordingly noted.^[3]

According to respondents:

At its present state and as stated prior hereto, the Consolidated Bank and Trust Company (petitioner) no longer exists as such to date. In fact, petitioner ceased to exist as such when it has amended its Articles of Incorporation, among which includes the renaming itself to Solidbank Corporation on March 15, 1988. Worse, when Solidbank Corporation was merged with First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) on September 22, 2000: the latter retained and used the same as the name of the merged corporation and the legal personality of the petitioner, is submitted, likewise ceased. This is but on the assumption that Solidbank Corporation ha[s] validly assumed the rights and claims of the petitioner as there is no showing on record that the petitioner has indeed transferred its interest to Solid Bank Corporation which surrendered its bank license. Accordingly, since the legal personality of the petitioner is no longer in existence, the party to whom judgment should be satisfied becomes a gray issue for the Respondents and for this Honorable Court to give a final word.

Assuming that petitioner has survived, retained its personality and - subsequently transferred its interest to FMIC, it is submitted that being an indispensable party to the case, FMIC, as a transferee pendente lite, should have made a party before the appeal proceedings. Wanting in this respect, it becomes impossible for Respondents to subscribe that the counsel who appeared before this Court were clothed with authority to represent a client whose legal personality ceased to exist and or a part)- which was never privy to this case.

Respondents alleged; that the foregoing events have affected the legal personality of petitioner, both as party-plaintiff before the lower court and as party-petitioner before the Supreme Court.

On November 24; 2006, petitioner filed a Comment to the Manifestation contending that:

The annex appended to the manifestation of counsel of respondents do not support the preposterous claim that Consolidated Bank has ceased to exist when it amended its Articles of Incorporation and renamed itself Solidbank on March 15, 1988. It is basic that adoption of a name do not bring about the dissolution, cessation of corporate existence.

The abbreviated name Solidbank for which The Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation is equally known for was officially adopted on March 15, 1988 and even so, that did not bring about the demise or dissolution of the corporation.

The bank continued its operation in pursuance to the purpose for which it was created.

[T]here was no cessation of business operations. In the merger, there was a union of two existing corporations whereby one was absorbed by another which survives and continued the combined business. As clearly setforth in the Articles of Merger on July 7, 2000, Solidbank shall be the surviving corporation and the separate corporate existence of FMIC shall cease.

 Such being the case, there was no necessity for the substitution of the name of the party, besides the alleged question as to the party to whom judgment should be satisfied which is perceived by counsel for respondents to be a gray issue is an imagined one rather than real.

Section 19 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is emphatic that even in cases of transfer of interest, the action may still be continued by or against the original party.^[4]

Thus, petitioner prayed for the denial of respondents' request for a full resolution on its Manifestation and that entry of judgment in favor of petitioner' be issued by this Court. Considering that the issue raised by respondents in their Manifestation dated July 20, 2006, entails the presentation of evidence, it should be addressed to the court of origin^[5] before which a writ of execution is brought by a prevailing party in accordance with the rules. It is within the trial court's function to receive and evaluate evidence relative to the execution of a judgment.^[6]

This case has long been final and executory. Even respondents pleaded no contest to this. In their Manifestation,^[7] they conceded that "the judgment rendered by this Court should be satisfied.

For said reason, the prayer of petitioner, in its Comment to the Manifestation, that an entry of judgment be issued in this case is GRANTED.

Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the court of origin, so that it can act on the subject manifestation and other matters in due course.

WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 8^th day of February 2010.

Very truly yours,

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 298.

^[2] Id. at 299

<sup>[3]

[4]</sup> id. at 370.

^[5] RTC Manila, Branch 27.

^[6] Supra note 1.

^[7] Id. at 369.