September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 156468 : September 21, 2011]
SPOUSES EDUARDO AND AGNES ONG AND WILFREDO ONG, PETITIONERS v. SOLID BANK (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO.), RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 156468 - SPOUSES EDUARDO and AGNES ONG and WILFREDO ONG, Petitioners v. SOLID BANK (now METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO.), Respondent.
This appeal reviews the decision promulgated in CA-G.R. SP No. 67616 on October 14, 2002,[1] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition of the petitioners and affirmed the denial by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, in Tarlac City of their motion to dismiss filed in Civil Case No. 9170 entitled Solidbank (now Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company) v. Sps. Eduardo Ong and Agnes Ong and Wilfredo Ong.
Antecedents
Respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) commenced Civil Case No. 9170 in the RTC to recover a sum of money from the petitioners.[2] The complaint alleged that the petitioners had obtained loans of P1,900,000.00 with interest of 16% per annum to be repriced every month, and P450,000.00 with interest of 13.898% per annum to be repriced every month from Solidbank, which Metrobank meanwhile acquired; that (lie loans were evidenced by two promissory notes; that in addition to the execution of the promissory notes, petitioners Eduardo Ong and Wilfredo Ong also separately executed a continuing guaranty in favor of Solidbank; and that upon maturity of the loans, Solidbank demanded payment but the petitioners (ailed to settle their obligalions, thereby compelling it to sue for payment of the obligations.
Instead of filing a responsive pleading, the petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint based on two grounds, namely: (a) that Metrobank was not the real party-in-interest; and (b) that the venue was improperly laid.[3] Metrobank opposed the motion to dismiss.[4]
As stated, on September 14, 2001, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and directed the petitioners to file their answer within the reglementary period. In so ruling, the RTC took judicial notice that Metrobank had acquired Solidbank in the latter part of 2000 and had thus absorbed all the assets and property of Solidbank, thereby rendering Metrobank the real party-in-interest who stood to be benefited by a favorable resolution of the action. The RTC found that the promissory notes and continuing guaranty had been executed in Tarlac and, therefore, the venue was properly laid in accordance with the agreement of the parties.[5]
The petitioners sought reconsideration of the denial,[6] but the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration on October 31, 2001,[7] noting that Metrobank's acquisition of Solidbank was a matter of public knowledge not only to judges but as well as to the banking community by reason of a circular letter dated October 16, 2000 disseminated by the Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) to all banks and non-banking financial intermediaries (stating that: "Pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. 1282 dated July 8, 2000, the banking operations of Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) was integrated with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) effective September 1, 2000.").[8]
The petitioners assailed both orders of the RTC in the CA through a petition for certiorari and prohibition.[9]
On October 14, 2002, the CA promulgated its decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Upon its receipt of the notice of the decision of October 14, 2002,[10] the RTC directed the petitioners on October 25, 2002 to file their answer to the complaint within 15 days from notice.[11]
In the meanwhile, the petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision of October 14, 2002, but the CA denied their motion on January 2, 2003. Hence, the petitioners appealed the CA's decision and resolution.
In the RTC, Metrobank filed a motion to declare defendants in default,[12] citing the failure of the petitioners to file their answer within the 15-day period granted in the RTC's order dated October 25, 2002. On January 8, 2003, the RTC granted Metrobank's motion and declared the petitioners in default and set the presentation of Metrobank's evidence on January 27, 2003.[13] The petitioners sought the reconsideration of the order of default; however, the RTC denied their motion on February 28, 2003.[14]
On April 4, 2003, the RTC rendered its decision[15] in Civil Case No. 9170. decreeing thusly:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter:
1. To pay the plaintiff; jointly and severally the amount of Php6,481,754.32;
2. To pay the plaintiff jointly and severally attorneys� fee in the amount of Php50,000.00; and litigation expenses in the amount of Php20,000.00; 3. To jointly and severally pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[16]
On May 20, 2003, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal.[17] Among the errors they assigned were that (a) the plaintiff in whose favor judgment was rendered was not the real party-in-interest; and (b) venue was improperly laid,[18] exactly the same errors being assailed in this recourse.
On March 30, 2006, the CA rendered its decision,[19] dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the RTC's decision of April 4, 2003.[20]
The petitioners appealed the CA's decision dated March 30, 2006 to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 174030).
In its resolution promulgated on October 10, 2007, the Court denied the petition for review for raising substantially factual issues and for failure 10 sufficiently show any reversible error committed by the CA that warranted the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.[21]
On March 17, 2008, the resolution dated October 10, 2007 became final and executory, and entry of judgment issued in G.R. No. 174030.[22]
Thereafter, Metrobank filed a motion to issue writ of execution in the RTC.[23] The petitioners opposed the motion.[24]
On November 16, 2009, the RTC deferred the resolution of the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in order not to prejudice the rights of the parties considering that the Court had meanwhile given due course to the instant petition. Resolving Metrobank's motion for reconsideration,[25] the RTC reiterated its order of November 16, 2009.[26]cralaw
Ruling
The petition for review is bereft of merit.
The petitioners did not confine their appeal in G.R. No. 174030 to the review of the merits of the decision of the CA (upholding the RTC's decision dated April 4, 2003), but also assailed therein the denial of their motion to dismiss by the RTC. In its resolution promulgated on October 10, 2007 in G.R. No. 174030, the Court denied the petition for review, and upheld the CA�s affirmance of the RTC's decision on the merits. Such affirmance became final. Considering that the Court also passed upon and resolved the challenge posed by the petitioners against the denial of their motion to dismiss, the issues concerning the propriety of the denial of the motion to dismiss could no longer be passed upon herein. Hence, there is nothing more for the Court to do except to deny the petition for review.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review; and DIRECT the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, in Tarlac City to resolve with dispatch the Motion to Issue Writ of Execution dated September 19, 2009 filed by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. in Civil Case No. 9170.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-32; penned by Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino (retired) with Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola (retired and deceased) and Associate Justice Sergio L. Pesta�o (retired and deceased) concurring.[2] Original Records, pp. 1-12.
[3] Id., pp. 15-17.
[4] Id., pp. 18-23.
[5] Id., p. 28.
[6] Id., pp. 29-31.
[7] Id., pp. 38-39.
[8] Exhibit A (Folder of Exhibits, p.l).
[9] CA rollo, pp. 2-11.
[10] Original Records, p. 86, 96.
[11] Id., p. 98.
[12] Id., pp. 113-115.
[13] Id., p.119.
[14] Id., pp. 149-151.
[15] Original records, pp. 153-155.
[16] Id., p. 155.
[17] Id., p. 160.
[18] Id., p. 166.
[19] Id., pp. 162-175.
[20] Id., p. 174.
[21] Id., p. 177.
[22] Id., p. 176.
[23] Id., pp. 178-180.
[24] Id., pp. 187-188.
[25] Id., pp. 196-199.
[26] Id., pp. 211-212.
