Philippine National Bank v. Urieta

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 180264. September 25, 2019.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN, EDGARDO A. URIETA [IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SB CHIEF, JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES], VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES [REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT], AND PHILIPPINE EXPORT-IMPORT CREDIT AGENCY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 25, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 180264 (Philippine National Bank v. Sandiganbayan, Edgardo A. Urieta [in his official capacity as SB Chief, Judicial Staff Officer, Security and Sheriff Services], Vicente B. Chuidian, the Republic of the Philippines [represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government], and Philippine Export-Import Credit Agency). — In G.R. No. 139941 1 and the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723, 2 We directed petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) to remit to the Sandiganbayan the proceeds of Letter of Credit (L/C) No. SFD-005-85, the same to be placed under special time deposit with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). Our pronouncement in these cases, notwithstanding, PNB now comes before Us via this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolution 3 dated November 6, 2007 in Civil Case No. 0027 implementing Our previous Orders.

To recall, private respondent Vicente B. Chuidian (Chuidian) was an alleged dummy of former President Ferdinand Marcos and his spouse Imelda Marcos in several illegally acquired companies of the spouses. Capitalizing on his close relationship with the Marcoses, Chuidian purportedly used false pretenses to induce the officers of the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation (PhilGuarantee), renamed as Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP) and now Philippine Export-Import Credit Agency (PhilEXIM), the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Central Bank, to facilitate the procurement and issuance of a loan guarantee in favor of the Asian Reliability Company, Incorporated (ARCI) in the amount of US$25,000,000.00. Chuidian allegedly owned 98% of ARCI. 4

Despite receipt of the proceeds of the loan, ARCI defaulted in the payments, compelling PhilGuarantee to undertake the same. Consequently, PhilGuarantee sued Chuidian before the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 5

On November 27, 1985, however, PhilGuarantee entered into a compromise agreement with Chuidian. It was agreed that he would assign and surrender title to all of his companies in favor of the Philippine Government. In exchange, PhilGuarantee shall absolve Chuidian from all civil and criminal liability on his defaulted loans. 6

The agreement also provided that in consideration of the purchase of Chuidian's shares of stock in Dynetics, Incorporated (Dynetics, Inc.) and Interlek, Incorporated (Interlek, Inc.), the Philippine Government shall pay Chuidian the amount of US$5,300,000.00. Chuidian received initial payment in the amount of US$700,000.00. For the remaining balance, a Letter of Credit Agreement (L/C No. SFD-005-85) was executed between Dynetics, Inc. and PNB on December 12, 1985 in the amount of US$4,600,000.00 in favor of Chuidian, from which he would draw US$100,000.00 monthly. Chuidian was able to make two drawings from the letter of credit in the amount of US$200,000.00 7 before his assets, including L/C No. SFD-005-85, were subsequently sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on May 30, 1986. 8

In the interim, PhilGuarantee filed a motion in its case against Chuidian before the Santa Clara County Superior Court, seeking to vacate the judgment containing the agreement between PhilGuarantee and Chuidian on the grounds of illegality, duress, and fraud. The court dismissed the motion, which was affirmed by the Sixth Appellate District of the Court of Appeals of the State of California. 9

After payment on L/C No. SFD-005-85 was frozen by the PCGG, Chuidian filed an action before the United States District Court, Central District of California to compel PNB to pay the proceeds of the letter of credit. PNB countered that it is excused from paying Chuidian and cannot be held liable for breach of contract under the principles of illegality, international comity, and act of state. PhilGuarantee also intervened, siding with PNB and seeking again to set aside its compromise agreement with Chuidian. 10

The Federal Court agreed that PNB was excused from making payment on L/C No. SFD-005-85 but ruled in favor of Chuidian, as well, when it denied the action of PhilGuarantee to set aside the compromise agreement. 11

Meanwhile, on February 27, 1987, in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of PNB, then Secretary of Finance Jaime V. Ongpin and then PNB President Edgardo B. Espiritu executed a deed of transfer providing for the transfer to the government of certain assets of PNB. In exchange, the government would assume certain liabilities of PNB including L/C No. SFD-005-85 listed under Dynetics, Inc. in favor of Chuidian in the amount of US$4,400,000.00. 12

On July 30, 1987, the government filed before the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0027 against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and their cronies, including Chuidian, for the reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and restitution of their ill-gotten wealth. 13

On March 17, 1993, the government filed a motion for issuance of a writ of attachment over L/C No. SFD-005-85. 14 On July 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of attachment against L/C No. SFD-005-85. Thus, on July 19, 1993, the Sandiganbayan issued an order of attachment directing the Sandiganbayan Sheriff to attach L/C No. SFD-005-85 for safekeeping pursuant to the Rules of Court as security for the satisfaction of judgment in Civil Case No. 0027. 15

After almost four years since the issuance of the order of attachment, or in August 1997, Chuidian filed a motion to lift the attachment, and later, a motion to require the Republic to deposit L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account. The Sandiganbayan denied Chuidian's motion to lift attachment but granted his motion to deposit L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account. The Sandiganbayan also held that the national government is the principal obligor of L/C No. SFD-005-85 even though the liability remained in the books of PNB for accounting and monitoring purposes. 16

In G.R. No. 139941, Chuidian alleged that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not lifting the writ of attachment and in holding that PNB was relieved of the obligation to pay L/C No. SFD-005-85. 17

In Our Decision dated January 19, 2001 in G.R. No. 139941, We upheld the validity of the writ of attachment and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 should be deposited in an interest bearing account with the LBP for the account of the Sandiganbayan in escrow until ordered released by the latter. As regards PNB's liability, We held that there is no reason to release PNB from any liability under L/C No. SFD-005-85. The deed of transfer between PNB and the government cannot affect L/C No. SFD-005-85 since there was no valid substitution of debtor. Until such time that the government is able to prove that Chuidian has no right to claim the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85, he is deemed to be the lawful payee-beneficiary, for which any substitution of debtor requires his consent. 18

On July 19, 2001, Our Decision dated January 19, 2001 in G.R. No. 139941 was entered in the book of entries of judgments. 19

Subsequent events transpired which led to the filing and consolidation of G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723. In the first, Chuidian assailed the Resolution dated October 8, 2002 of the Sandiganbayan insofar as it denied his motion for writ of execution of Our Decision in G.R. No. 139941. 20 In the second, PNB impugned the Resolution dated October 30, 2003 of the Sandiganbayan denying its plea for release from its obligation to deposit in an interest bearing account with the LBP the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85. According to PNB, Chuidian had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy in 1991 in California and that L/C No. SFD-005-85 was included in his scheduled assets. The trustee of the estate of Chuidian sold L/C No. SFD-005-85 to Fidelity Partners, Inc. (Fidelity). Fidelity, in turn, executed a deed of assignment in favor of TIDCORP, transferring to the latter all its rights and interests over L/C No. SFD-005-85. PNB then prayed for its release from the obligation to remit on account of a supervening event, i.e., the execution of the deed of assignment. 21

In Our Decision dated July 31, 2006 in G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723, We dismissed both petitions and reiterated Our directive in G.R. No. 139941 to PNB. We held:

We close by making clear certain key premises holding this ponencia together and against which it is cast:

1. As peremptorily determined by the Court in its ruling in G.R. No. 139941, PNB is estopped from denying its liability under L/C No. SFD-005-85. The Deed of Transfer entered into on February 27, 1987 by and between the Republic and PNB whereby certain liabilities of PNB were transferred to the national government affects or is binding only on the contracting parties, their assigns and privies. It did not relieve PNB, as against Chuidian, from liability as the original debtor under the L/C since there was no valid substitution of debtor;

2. Chuidian remains the lawful payee-beneficiary of L/C No. SFD-005-85, until such time that the government, thru any of its agencies or any other interested party, is able to successfully prove in the proper forum that Chuidian has no right or has no longer any right to claim the proceeds of the L/C; and

3. The Decision of the Court in G.R. No. 139941 that the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 be deposited with the LBP to be held in escrow is, as the Sandiganbayan declared, a directive addressed to PNB, not an award for or against any party. The question as to whom such attached proceeds will eventually be awarded to shall be determined at the first instance in Civil Case No. 0027 of the Sandiganbayan, barring any supervening event that would change the factual or legal complexion of the case.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 156383 is DISMISSED on the ground of mootness, while the petition in G.R. No. 160723 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Sandiganbayan is ordered to immediately enforce the Decision of the Court dated January 19, 2001 in G.R. No. 139941, as reiterated in that court's Order promulgated on July 10, 2003 and Resolution on October 30, 2003 in its Civil Case No. 0027.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Citations omitted.)

Thus, on April 27, 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution 23 directing PNB to comply, under pain of contempt, with Our Decisions dated January 19, 2001 in G.R. No. 139941 and July 31, 2006 in G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723, i.e., to remit the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 to the Sandiganbayan.

Instead of complying with the directive, PNB filed a series of motions to seek a reversal or modification of the Order for PNB to remit the alleged proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85. These were: (1) motion to excuse or defer compliance 24 dated May 10, 2007; (2) motion for evidentiary hearing 25 dated May 31, 2007; (3) motion for production of documents 26 dated June 29, 2007; (4) motion to require deposit from Dynetics, Inc./Chuidian and/or PhilGuarantee prior to deposit of the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 with the Sandiganbayan 27 dated July 4, 2007; (5) consolidated reply to opposition to motion to excuse or defer compliance 28 dated July 4, 2007; (6) motion to lift the Sandiganbayan's Resolution 29 dated July 17, 2007; (7) reply (to opposition with prayer to strike out motion to require deposit from Dynetics, Inc./Chuidian and/or PhilGuarantee prior to deposit of the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 with the Sandiganbayan); 30 and (8) motion for clarificatory order 31 dated August 13, 2007.

On November 6, 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution denying PNB's motions. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Our directive in G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723, reiterating Our earlier directive in G.R. No. 139941 was, as correctly characterized by Chuidian, "unavoidable, unconditional, and unequivocal." 32

PNB then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction 33 on November 13, 2007. PNB maintains that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it: (1) refused to hear evidence on the existence of the alleged proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 despite notice of circumstances resulting to a change in the factual and legal complexion of the case; (2) insisted that Our Decision in G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 was unconditional; and (3) refused to issue the clarifications PNB sought.

On November 19, 2007, We granted PNB's application for a temporary restraining order 34 to immediately enjoin respondents from implementing and enforcing the assailed Resolution in Civil Case No. 0027. 35

On November 23, 2007, PNB filed a manifestation 36 informing this Court that on November 14, 2007, it filed a complaint 37 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 07-1704-CFM, attacking the legality, validity and enforceability of the letter of credit agreement dated December 12, 1985 between Dynetics, Inc. and PNB which led to the issuance of L/C No. SFD-005-85.

We grant the petition.

We emphasize at the outset that the subjects of the petitions for certiorari We resolved in G.R. No 139941 and in the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 are mere interlocutory orders of the Sandiganbayan. An order is interlocutory when it does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. 38 It obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. 39

G.R. No. 139941 resolved the opposition of Chuidian against the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the graft court over L/C No. SFD-005-85, as well as the issue on the motion of Chuidian to deposit the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account for the account of the Sandiganbayan. There is no gainsaying that the writ for preliminary attachment and the order to deposit the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account are provisional and preventive remedies in the main case, Civil Case No. 0027. Both only deal with preliminary matters which do not determine the merits of Civil Case No. 0027. In other words, any order granting or denying the application for the writ and the motion of Chuidian does not conclude the main case.

In the same vein, the subjects of the petitions for certiorari We resolved in G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 are also interlocutory orders of the Sandiganbayan in relation to Our prior ruling in G.R. No. 139941. These assailed Resolutions denied the motion for execution filed by Chuidian of Our ruling in G.R. No. 139941 and the motion filed by PNB to be excused from depositing in escrow the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account. Clearly, these Resolutions do not, once again, go into the merits of Civil Case No. 0027.

Consequently, the doctrine of resjudicata finds no application in this case.

Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action. For res judicata to apply, all these requisites must exist.

The "finality" of Our Decisions in G.R. No 139941 and G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 do not erase the fact that what We have ruled upon are mere interlocutory orders of the Sandiganbayan. Our Decisions in these cases attained finality only in the sense that they are orders that a party can no longer appeal because they have been rendered by the highest possible tribunal involved. These Decisions, however, have not become immutable. The doctrine of immutability of final judgment and concomitantly, the doctrines of resjudicata or conclusiveness of judgment, do not come into play insofar as interlocutory orders are concerned. An interlocutory order is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment. This prescinds from a court's inherent power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. 40

It may be argued, nonetheless, that PNB is barred from raising anew the issue on the Order to deposit the proceeds of the letter of credit on the principle of law of the case.

Law of the case is a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes controlling in succeeding instances where the same legal question is raised, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. 41

Our previous holdings then in G.R. No. 139941 and in the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 affirming the interlocutory orders of the Sandiganbayan may be held to be the controlling legal rule of decision between the parties in this petition. It would be true, whether said Decisions were correct on general principles or not, and without a showing by petitioner that the facts on which these Decisions were predicated are no longer the same facts of the case presently before Us. 42

The doctrine of the law of the case, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions. It is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. 43

The doctrine of the law of the case is also described as a discretionary doctrine. 44 It merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power. That discretion, however, is not unfettered. While courts have some discretion not to apply the doctrine of law of the case, that discretion is limited. The prior decision should be followed unless: (1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice; (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate; or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial. 45 As will be shown later, this case falls within the first exception.

In the same vein, even if We were to assume for the nonce that the nature of the assailed orders of the Sandiganbayan were not interlocutory, the finality of Our Decisions in G.R. No. 139941 and G.R. Nos. 156383 and 160723 will not absolutely preclude Us from revisiting and vacating the same. The doctrines of immutability of final judgments and res judicata also give way to exceptions.

Citing Teodorov. Carague, 46 We held in De Leon v. Balinag 47 that it is within the inherent power and discretion of the Court to amend, modify or reconsider a final judgment when it is necessary to accomplish the administration of justice. We relaxed the rule on resjudicata in that case on the justification of the broader interest of justice and the circumstances of the case. We declared that the Court is not precluded from re-examining its Own ruling and rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to resjudicata would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality. We also noted that it was not the first time that the principle of resjudicata would be set aside in favor of substantial justice, which is after all the avowed purpose of all law and jurisprudence. Indeed, in Teodoro, We enumerated the following as cases in point:

In this respect it has been declared that resjudicata, as the embodiment of a public policy, must at times be weighed against competing interests, and must, on occasion, yield to other policies. The determination of the question is said to require a compromise, in each case of the two opposing policies, of the desirability of finality and the public interest in searching the right result (46 Am. Jur. pp. 402-403).

Underlying all discussion of the problem must be the principle of fundamental fairness in the due process sense. It has accordingly been adjudged that the public policy underlying the principle of the res judicata must be considered together with the policy that a party shall not be deprived of a fair adversary proceeding in which to present his case (46 Am. Jur. p. 403).

x x x Res judicata is to be disregarded if the application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality. (159 SCRA 264, Republic v. De Los Angeles).

Assuming in gratiaargumenti that the prior judgment of dismissal with prejudice was validly rendered within the lawful discretion of the court and could not be considered as an adjudication on the merits, nonetheless, the principle of res judicata should be disregarded if its application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality. The application of the said principle, under the particular facts obtaining, would amount to denial of justice and/or bar to a vindication of a legitimate grievance. (Suarez v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 183 [1991]).

xxx xxx xxx

The principle of res judicata should be disregarded if its application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality and/or a bar to a vindication of a legitimate grievance. (Ronquillo v. Marasigan, 5 SCRA 304, 312).

The dispensation of justice and the vindication of legitimate grievance should not be barred by technicalities. (Santiago v. Ramirez, 8 SCRA 157).

xxx xxx xxx 48

We hold that this case falls within the exceptions mentioned above. Our previous Decisions ordering PNB to deposit the proceeds of the letter of credit to an interest bearing account is patently wrong in light of the very nature of a letter of credit.

In commercial transactions, a letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. 49 Since its genesis, however, the use of letters of credit has expanded far beyond this tangible-goods-in-sales context. 50 In simple definition, a letter of credit is an engagement by a bank or other person made at the request of a customer that the issuer will honor drafts or other demands for payment upon compliance with the conditions specified in the credit. Through a letter of credit, the bank merely substitutes its own promise to pay for the promise to pay of one of its customers who in return promises to pay the bank the amount of funds mentioned in the letter of credit plus credit or commitment fees mutually agreed upon. 51

It bears emphasis further that the mere opening of a letter of credit does not involve a specific appropriation of a sum of money in favor of the beneficiary. It only signifies that the beneficiary may be able to draw funds upon the letter of credit up to the designated amount specified in the letter. It does not convey the notion that a particular sum of money has been specifically reserved or has been held in trust. 52

In view of the foregoing nature of a letter of credit, it becomes virtually impossible for PNB to comply with the directive to deposit the proceeds of the L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account.

For one, there are certain conditions before PNB, as the issuing bank, can honor the drafts drawn by the beneficiary. The drafts to be drawn under the letter of credit must be marked "drawn under Philippine National Bank Irrevocable Deferred [L/C] No. SFD-005-85 dated December 12, 1985, Manila, Philippines," and must be accompanied by a copy of the letter of credit and the simple receipt indicating the amount drawn in accordance with the schedule agreed upon at the time of presentation for payment. 53

The letter of credit provides further that at least one week before the scheduled date of each drawdown, the borrower Dynetics, Inc. shall deposit with petitioner the peso equivalent of the amount of the relevant drawdown calculated at the rate of exchange quoted by petitioner as of the date of deposit for selling dollars for pesos. 54 This obligation of the borrower was stipulated to be absolute, unconditional, irrevocable, and shall be performed strictly in accordance with the terms of the letter of credit under all circumstances whatsoever. 55

Clearly, therefore, unlike in a regular bank deposit or time deposit, no account was created from which funds may be drawn. Dynetics, Inc. did not surrender assets unconditionally to the custody of PNB, and neither did PNB credit any account of Dynetics, Inc. PNB's own assets did not increase with the issuance of the letter of credit. 56

The letter of credit is for Chuidian's benefit, but PNB relied upon Dynetics, Inc. primarily to meet the obligations of the letter of credit. The obligation of PNB to Chuidian was also far from being unequivocal and was, in fact, wholly contingent as the latter could not have collected from PNB unless he presented the documents required under the letter of credit. 57 PNB was even entitled to refuse payment should the documents presented by Chuidian do not strictly conform to the requirements under the letter of credit.

It must be noted that the letter of credit has been sequestered and placed under the control and custody of the PCGG. 58 Prior to this sequestration order, the PCGG has likewise issued a freeze order directing petitioner to freeze any further drawings against the letter of credit. 59 Thus, since then (beginning March 1986 up to October 1990 when the letter of credit expired), the letter of credit had not been presented for payment in accordance with its terms and consequently, PNB ceased to make any payment on the same. 60

All the foregoing show that there can be no proceeds to speak of. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that PNB was constrained to file various motions before the Sandiganbayan, one of which is a motion to require deposit from Dynetics, Inc./Chuidian and/or PhilGuarantee prior to deposit the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 with the Sandiganbayan 61 because PNB felt helpless in complying with the directive. The situation here is unlike the sequestration of shares of stocks by the PCGG which continue to earn dividends. In those cases, there are determinate, tangible proceeds which can be deposited in escrow.

Finally, We do not agree with Chuidian that PNB is guilty of forum shopping and direct contempt when it filed a complaint in the RTC of Pasay on November 14, 2007 despite the pendency of the petition for certiorari and prohibition before this Court.

In Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, 62 We discussed the elements of forum shopping:

The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration. 63

xxx xxx xxx

x x x Forum shopping can be committed in either of three ways, namely: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litispendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (resjudicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litispendentia or resjudicata). 64

Prescinding from the above, besides sharing the same factual antecedents, there is no identity of causes of action between the present case and Civil Case No. 07-1704-CFM. This petition before Us ultimately seeks to set aside the Resolution dated November 6, 2007 of the Sandiganbayan directing PNB to deposit the proceeds of L/C No. SFD-005-85 in an interest bearing account. On the other hand, the complaint in Civil Case No. 07-1704-CFM for nullity, rescission, and damages attacks the legality, validity, and enforceability of the letter of credit. In other words, a resolution of this case will only determine whether or not PNB should comply with the directive to deposit the proceeds of the letter of credit in an interest bearing account. Civil Case No. 07-1704-CFM, on the other hand, which will be a judgment on the merits, will determine the liability of PNB under the letter of credit.

WHEREFORE, We GRANT the petition. The Resolution dated November 6, 2007 of the Sandiganbayan is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Temporary Restraining Order dated November 19, 2007 enjoining the implementation and enforcement of the Resolution dated November 6, 2007 is hereby declared PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J.,on official business;Gesmundo, J.,no part;Zalameda, J.,designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated September 25, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, January 19, 2001, 349 SCRA 745.

2.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 327.

3.Rollo, pp. 42-59; penned by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, concurred in by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada.

4.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 1 at 746.

5.Id. at 746-747.

6.Id. at 747.

7.Id. at 747-748.

8.Rollo, p. 8.

9.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 1 at 749.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 1 at 749-750.

13.Id. at 750.

14.Id.

15.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 1 at 752-753.

16.Id. at 753-757.

17.Id. at 757.

18.Id. at 764-766.

19.Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 2 at 332.

20.Id. at 333.

21.Id. at 334-335.

22.Id. at 344-345.

23.Rollo, pp. 83-84.

24.Id. at 85-98.

25.Id. at 99-102.

26.Id. at 103-107.

27.Id. at 108-116.

28.Id. at 44.

29.Id. at 117-138.

30.Id. at 44.

31.Id. at 139-150.

32.Id. at 51.

33.Id. at 3-39.

34.Id. at 164-166.

35.Id. at 162-163.

36.Id. at 189-192.

37.Id. at 193-208.

38.Denso (Phils), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-75000, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 280, 286.

39. Id.

40. Ley Construction and Development Corporation v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 133801, June 27, 2000, 334 SCRA 443, 449. Citations omitted.

41. Marcos v. Republic, G.R. No. 189434, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 280, 302, citing PhilippineCoconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 255.

42. Union Bank v. ASB Development Corporation, G.R. No. 172895, July 30, 2008, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 578, 600-601.

43. Villa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 87186, April 24, 1992, 208 SCRA 283, 295-296.

44. Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (1997).

45. Id.

46. G.R. No. 96004, February 21, 1992, 206 SCRA 429.

47. G.R. No. 169996, August 11, 2006, 498 SCRA 569, 578.

48. Teodoro v. Carague, supra note 46 at 434-435.

49. Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. No. 146717, November 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 307, 326. Citation omitted.

50. The Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Northwest National Bank of Fort Worth, 578 SW 2d 109, 113 (1978).

51. Bank of Commerce v. Serrano, G.R. No. 151895, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 484, 490. Citation omitted.

52. Feati Bank & Trust Company v. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94209, April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 576, 592.

53. Rollo, pp. 828-833.

54. Id. at 61.

55. Id. at 63.

56. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Philadelphia Gear Corp., 476 U.S. 426 (1986).

57. Id.

58. Rollo, p. 695.

59. Id. at 834.

60. Id. at 718.

61. Id. at 108-116.

62. G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014, 716 SCRA 175.

63. Id. at 178-179.

64. Id. at 188.