THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228611. March 22, 2017.]
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. COL. JOFREY PALALAY, MA. CONCEPCION PALALAY AND SIMARON SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 22, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228611 (Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Col. Jofrey Palalay, Ma. Concepcion Palalay and Simaron Security and Investigation Agency, Inc.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and to set aside the Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 dated August 31, 2016 and November 28, 2016, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140426. The CA Decision affirmed the Orders dated January 5, 2015 3 and March 9, 2015 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which (1) granted the Motion to Release the Judgment Award under Safekeeping of the herein respondents' Col. Jofrey Palalay (Col. Jofrey), Ma. Concepcion Palalay (Ma. Concepcion) and Simaron Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (SSIAI), as well as their prayer for computation of additional interest from February 2008 until the same is fully satisfied; and (2) directed the RTC Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) to release to the respondents the Judgment Award of P13,842,756.99, and the Branch Sheriff to implement the writ of execution including the applicable interests after finality of the Decision until the same is fully satisfied. The CA Resolution, on the other hand, denied for lack of merit the herein petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines' Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid CA Decision.
This case originated from a Complaint for Sum of Money with Damages5 (Complaint) filed by the respondents against the petitioner before the RTC-Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-1612.
After the petitioner's Answer, 6 the trial court rendered a Decision 7 dated June 17, 2003 ordering petitioner to pay the respondents (1) P5,779,097.54 with interest at 12% per annum from the time of the filing of the Complaint, which amount corresponds to the latter's claim for actual damages; and (2) P1,115,665.09 with interest at 12% per annum from the time of the filing of the Complaint, which amount corresponds to the actual damages suffered by the respondent SSIAI. 8 The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration thereof was denied for lack of merit in an Order 9 dated January 15, 2004. On appeal 10 to the CA, the latter, in a Decision 11 dated March 17, 2006, affirmed the June 17, 2003 Decision of the trial court. The petitioner also moved for its reconsideration but in a Resolution 12 dated August 30, 2006 the same was ordered expunged from the records for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. There being no appeal or motion for reconsideration filed within the prescribed period, the March 17, 2006 CA Decision became final and executory. Nonetheless, the petitioner still elevated the matter to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 174467. In a Resolution 13 dated February 19, 2007, this Court denied the Petition. The petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration thereof was similarly denied with finality in another Resolution 14 dated June 20, 2007.
With the finality of the ruling in the respondents' Complaint, the latter moved 15 for the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the June 17, 2003 Decision of the trial court, which was granted. The corresponding writ of execution and a Notice of Garnishment were then issued on September 28, 2007 16 and October 18, 2007, 17 respectively. The petitioner, however, moved to quash 18 the said writ of execution for it had allegedly discovered a supervening cause, i.e., that the respondent Col. Jofrey may be a fictitious person. In an Order 19 dated January 14, 2008, the trial court denied it for lack of merit and held that the rank or title of the respondent Col. Jofrey as "Colonel" bore no relevance to the collection case or to the judgment award. As such, the respondents moved for the release of the judgment award, which was turned over and deposited by the petitioner to the OCC. This was granted in an Order 20 dated February 1, 2008 and the trial court directed the OCC to immediately release to the respondents the judgment award. CAIHTE
The petitioner, thereafter, filed before the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment (with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) 21 to set aside the trial court June 17, 2003 Decision on the ground of extrinsic fraud, i.e., that the respondent Col. Jofrey has used a fictitious name and fraudulently assumed a false identity "Col. Jofrey Palalay" — appending the rank or title of colonel. 22 The petitioner then moved to stop the release of funds to the respondents. In a Resolution 23 dated February 4, 2008, the CA ordered to withhold the delivery of the checks to the sheriff or to make payments thereof in the event they have been tendered. In view thereof, the trial court issued an Order 24 directing the OCC and the ex-officio sheriff to comply therewith.
On June 19, 2013, the CA rendered a Decision 25 dismissing the Petition and ordering the petitioner to immediately pay the respondents the judgment award. The CA held that the use of a false or fictitious identity, if true, is not extrinsic fraud; rather, the same is intrinsic fraud. Moreover, since the petitioner already admitted in paragraph 1.1 of its Answer the identity of the respondent Col. Jofrey, thus, it is estopped from assailing the same. Also, the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent Col. Jofrey is not the same person as its depositor. Both the documentary and the testimonial evidence adduced by the respondents had substantiated the use of "Colonel" by the respondent Col. Jofrey as the latter has been a member of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), and afterwards, the Philippine National Police (PNP) and it was during his service in these institutions that he achieved the rank of "Colonel," thus, the appendage of the title to his name. The CA also brushed aside the petitioner's assertion that the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules requiring the verification of the identities of payees of checks apply in this case. The CA cited the following reasons why the AMLA and the BSP rules are not applicable here: (1) the petitioner is mandated to pay not as a financial institution conducting business with its clients, but as a party in a judicial proceeding which lost, and is required to settle a judgment debt in favor of the prevailing parties; (2) the RTC did not require the judgment debt to be paid through check and the petitioner could have easily settled the judgment debt by tendering the sum in cash, thus, erasing doubt as to the necessity of verifying a payee's identity; and (3) the petitioner executed a check payable to the OCC, and, thus, in naming the OCC as payee effectively precluded payment to the wrong party, and honoring the check would have released petitioner from its obligation. 26
The petitioner moved for its reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated January 6, 2014. The respondents, thus, filed an Omnibus Motion to Release the Judgment Award before the trial court.
In the interim, the petitioner elevated to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules Court 27 the dismissal of its Petition for Annulment of Judgment, together with the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration thereof. In view of this, the trial court denied the respondents' Omnibus Motion to Release Judgment Award on the ground of judicial courtesy.
Nonetheless, this Court, in a Resolution 28 dated March 24, 2014, denied the petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration thereof was also denied in a Resolution 29 dated July 30, 2014.
The respondents, thereafter, filed another Omnibus Motion to Release Judgment Award before the trial court, which was granted in an Order dated January 5, 2015. The petitioner moved for its reconsideration but it was denied in another Order dated March 9, 2015.
Dissatisfied, the petitioner went on certiorari to the CA, which on August 31, 2016 rendered the now assailed Decision affirming the trial court Orders dated January 5, 2015 and March 9, 2015. The petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration thereof was denied in the questioned Resolution dated November 28, 2016.
Hence, this petition with the following arguments: (1) the assailed decision failed to state the facts and the law on which it was based; (2) the orders and the writs of execution are void because the computation of the judgment award and interest was done by the sheriff and not by the presiding judge; and (3) the release of the payment of the judgment award to the respondents will amount to judicial tolerance of the violation of BSP Circulars and the AMLA given that respondent Col. Jofrey and Geofrey Palalay, who claimed to be one and the same person, supposedly holding accounts with the petitioner, are clearly different persons. 30
This Court resolves to deny the petition.
This Court holds that all the arguments raised herein by the petitioner are equally not meritorious. Obviously, this petition was just another attempt to avoid compliance with the writ of execution that had long been issued in favor of the respondents.
Primarily, this Court is not convinced that the assailed CA Decision failed to state the facts and the law on which it is based. A reading of the challenged CA Decision would easily reveal the factual and the legal bases of the court in arriving at its ruling. The same is complete, clear and concise. To note, the focus of the petitioner's arguments before the CA was the payment and computation of the interest on the judgment award, which the CA has correctly addressed in this manner:
In order to fully satisfy the final decision, it is proper to compute additional interest from January 2008 until full payment. Two (2) Manager's Checks made in the name of and in favor of the [OCC] were deposited by the petitioner on 30 January 2008 to the [OCC], but the [herein respondents] never received the same because of the filing of the petition to annul judgment by the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that full payment was received by the [respondents]. Contrary to petitioner's arguments, the computation of interests will not alter the judgment of the court a quo. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 17 June 2003 provides for an interest of twelve percent (12%) computed from the time of the filing of the complaint. Such interest is to be imposed until the full satisfaction of the judgment. Moreover, the court a quo correctly cited [Crystal, et al. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands and ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Hernandez]31 stating that additional interest is to be imposed from the finality of the judgment until the full satisfaction thereof.
Second, there was no truth in the petitioner's allegation that the computation of the judgment award and the interest thereof were done by the sheriff and not by the presiding judge, thus, making the orders and the writs of execution void. The June 17, 2003 Decision of the trial court clearly stated that the judgment award is subject to 12% interest. Here we quote the dispositive portion of the said decision, thus: DETACa
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [herein petitioner] to pay the [herein respondents] following amounts:
1. P5,779,097.54 with interest at 12% per annum from the time of the filing of the Complaint and which amount corresponds to [respondents'] claim for actual damages; and
2. P1,115,665.09 with interest at 12% per annum from the time of the filing of the Complaint and which amount corresponds to the actual damages suffered by the [respondent SSIA].
Without pronouncement as to costs.
It is clear from the foregoing that the computation of the judgment award and the interest thereon were not left at the sheriff's discretion as what the petitioner would like this Court to believe. And, in doing so, the sheriff is guided by the decision of the trial court and it cannot impose any interest rate other than the one stated therein.
Third, this Court need not rule on the petitioner's argument that the release of the payment of the judgment award to the respondents will amount to judicial tolerance of the violation of BSP Circulars and the AMLA given that the respondent Col. Jofrey and Geofrey Palalay, who claimed to be one and the same person, supposedly holding accounts with the petitioner are clearly different persons. It is worth stressing that the issue regarding the identity of the respondent Col. Jofrey, as well as the supposed violation of the BSP Circulars and the AMLA by reason thereof, has long been settled in the June 19, 2013 CA Decision on the petitioner's Petition to Annul the June 17, 2003 Decision of the trial court, which was affirmed by this Court. Thus, this Court can no longer touch that issue anymore without violating the principle of res judicata.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140426, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
Treble the costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring, rollo, pp. 29-38.
2.Id. at 27-28.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Encarnacion Jaja G. Moya, id. at 72-76.
4.Id. at 77-78.
5.Id. at 157-161.
6.Id. at 162-172.
7. Penned by Pairing Judge Cesar D. Santamaria, id. at 173-184.
8.Id. at 184.
9.Id. at 215-218.
10. On appeal, the Complaint was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 82388.
11. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Noel G. Tijam, concurring, rollo, pp. 258-270.
12.Id. at 282-285.
13.Id. at 308.
14.Id. at 320.
15.Id. at 321-326.
16.Id. at 327-328.
17. CA Decision dated July 19, 2013, id. at 404.
18.Id. at 329-337.
19.Id. at 347-348.
20.Id. at 90.
21. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 102082.
22. CA Decision dated 19 July 2003, supra note 17 at 405.
23. Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring, id. at 105-107.
24.Id. at 108.
25. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring, id. at 403-423.
26. CA Decision dated July 19, 2003, supra note 17, at 416-420.
27. Docketed as G.R. No. 210706.
28.Rollo, pp. 134-135.
29.Id. at 136.
30.Id. at 15-16.
31. G.R. No. 180274, September 4, 2009 and G.R. No. 212689, August 11, 2014, respectively.