Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.

Civil Procedure Case Digest

FACTS:

On May 21, 1974, petitioner Davao Timber Corporation (DATICOR) and respondent
Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) entered into a loan
agreement under which PDCP extended to DATICOR a foreign currency loan of US
$265,000 and a peso loan of P2.5 million or a total amount of approximately P4.4 million,
computed at the then prevailing rate of exchange of the dollar with the peso.

The loan agreement provided, among other things, that DATICOR shall pay: (1) a service
fee of one percent (1%) per annum (later increased to six percent [6%] per annum)
on the outstanding balance of the peso loan; (2) 12 percent (12%) per annum
interest on the peso loan; and (3) penalty charges of two percent (2%) per month
in case of default.

The loans were secured by real estate mortgages over six parcels of land one situated
in Manila (the Otis property) which was registered in the name of petitioner Ernesto C.
Del Rosario, and five in Mati, Davao Oriental and chattel mortgages over pieces of
machinery and equipment.

Petitioners paid a total of P3 million to PDCP, which the latter applied to interest, service
fees and penalty charges. This left petitioners, by PDCPs computation, with an
outstanding balance on the principal of more than P10 million as of May 15, 1983.

By March 31, 1982, petitioners had filed a complaint against PDCP before the then Court
of First Instance (CFI) of Manila for violation of the Usury Law, annulment of contract and
damages. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 82-8088, was dismissed by the CFI.

On appeal, the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) set aside the CFIs dismissal of
the complaint and declared void and of no effect the stipulation of interest in the loan
agreement between DATICOR and PDCP.

PDCP appealed the IACs decision to this Court where it was docketed as G.R. No.
73198.

In the interim, PDCP assigned a portion of its receivables from petitioners (the
receivables) to its co-respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) under

Page 1 of 5
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

a Deed of Assignment dated April 10, 1987[5] for a consideration of P5,435,000. The
Deed of Assignment was later amended by two Supplements. [6]

FEBTC, and petitioners later executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

On September 2, 1992, this Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 73198 affirming in
toto the decision of the IAC. It determined that after deducting the P3 million earlier
paid by petitioners to PDCP, their remaining balance on the principal loan was
only P1.4 million.

Petitioners thus filed on a Complaint for sum of money against PDCP and FEBTC before
the RTC of Makati, mainly to recover the excess payment which they computed to
be P5.3 million P4.335 million from PDCP, and P965,000 from FEBTC.

RTC rendered a decision ordering PDCP to pay petitioners the sum of P4.035 million, to
bear interest at 12% per annum from April 25, 1994 until fully paid; to execute a release
or cancellation of the mortgages on the five parcels of land in Mati, Davao Oriental and
on the pieces of machinery and equipment and to return the corresponding titles to
petitioners; and to pay the costs of the suit.

As for the complaint of petitioners against respondent FEBTC, the trial court dismissed it
for lack of cause of action, ratiocinating that the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC
was not subject to this Courts Decision in G.R. No. 73198, FEBTC not being a party
thereto.

From the trial courts decision, petitioners and respondent PDCP appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA).

On May 22, 1998, the CA rendered a decision, holding that petitioners outstanding
obligation, which this Court had determined to be P1.4 million, could not be increased or
decreased by any act of the creditor PDCP.

Page 2 of 5
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

The CA held that when PDCP assigned its receivables, the amount payable to it by
DATICOR was the same amount payable to assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any
stipulation that PDCP and FEBTC might have provided in the Deed of Assignment,
DATICOR not having been a party thereto, hence, not bound by its terms.

Citing Articles 2154 and 2163 of the Civil Code which embody the principle of solutio
indebiti, the CA held that the party bound to refund the excess payment of P5 million was
FEBTC as it received the overpayment; and that FEBTC could recover from PDCP the
amount of P4.035 million representing its overpayment for the assigned receivables
based on the terms of the Deed of Assignment or on the general principle of equity.

Finally, the CA held that the claim of PDCP against DATICOR for the payment of P1.4
million had no basis, DATICORs obligation having already been paid in full, overpaid in
fact, when it paid assignee FEBTC the amount of P6.4 million.

Accordingly, the CA ordered PDCP to execute a release or cancellation of the mortgages

FEBTCs MR of the CA Decision was denied, and so was its subsequent appeal to this
Court.

On April 25, 2000, petitioners filed before the RTC of Makati a

In its Answer, FEBTC denied responsibility, it submitting that nowhere in the dispositive
portion of the CA Decision was it held liable to return the whole amount of P5.435 million
representing the consideration for the assignment to it of the receivables, and since
petitioners failed to claim the said whole amount in their original complaint as they were
merely claiming the amount of P965,000 from it, they were barred from claiming it.

Page 3 of 5
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

FEBTC later filed a Third Party Complaint against PDCP praying that the latter be made
to pay the P965,000 and the interests adjudged by the CA in favor of petitioners, as well
as the P4.335 million and interests that petitioners were claiming from it. It posited that
PDCP should be held liable because it received a consideration of P5.435 million when it
assigned the receivables.

Answering the Third Party Complaint, PDCP contended that since petitioners were not
seeking the recovery of the amount of P965,000, the same cannot be recovered via the
third party complaint.

PDCP went on to contend that since the final and executory decision had held that
DATICOR has no cause of action against it for the refund of any part of the excess
payment, FEBTC can no longer re-litigate the same issue.

Moreover, PDCP contended that it was not privy to the MOA which explicitly excluded the
receivables from the effect of the Supreme Court decision, and that the amount of P6.4
million paid by petitioners to FEBTC was clearly intended as consideration for the release
and cancellation of the lien on the Otis property.

Replying,[22] FEBTC pointed out that PDCP cannot deny that it benefited from the
assignment of its rights over the receivables from petitioners. It added that the third party
claim being founded on a valid and justified cause, PDCPs counterclaims lacked factual
and legal basis.

Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion for Summary Judgment[23] to which FEBTC filed its
opposition.[24]

By Order of March 5, 2001, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment for
lack of merit.[25]

On July 10, 2001, the trial court issued the assailed Decision dismissing petitioners
complaint on the ground of res judicata and splitting of cause of action. It recalled that
petitioners had filed Civil Case to recover the alleged overpayment both from PDCP and
FEBTC and to secure the cancellation and release of their mortgages on real properties,
machinery and equipment; that when said case was appealed, the CA, in its Decision,

Page 4 of 5
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

ordered PDCP to release and cancel the mortgages and FEBTC to pay P965,000 with
interest, which Decision became final and executory on November 23, 1999; and that a
Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment between petitioners and FEBTC was in fact submitted
on August 8, 2000, hence, the issue between them was finally settled under the doctrine
of res judicata.

The trial court moreover noted that the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC clearly
stated that the pending litigation before the Supreme Court of the Philippines with respect
to the Loan exclusive of the Receivables assigned to FEBTC shall prevail up to the extent
not covered by this Agreement. That statement in the MOA, the trial court ruled,
categorically made only the loan subject to this Courts Decision in G.R. No. 73198, hence,
it was with the parties full knowledge and consent that petitioners agreed to pay P6.4
million to FEBTC as consideration for the settlement. The parties cannot thus be allowed
to welsh on their contractual obligations, the trial court concluded.

Respecting the third party claim of FEBTC, the trial court held that FEBTCs payment of
the amount of P1,224,906.67 (P965,000 plus interest) to petitioners was in compliance
with the final judgment of the CA, hence, it could not entertain such claim because the
Complaint filed by petitioners merely sought to recover from FEBTC the alleged
overpayment of P4.335 million and attorneys fees of P200,000.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration[26] of the July 10, 2001 decision of the trial court
was denied by Order of September 24, 2001.

ISSUE:

Whether or not their complaint is dismissible on the ground of res judicata and
splitting of cause of action

RULING:

Page 5 of 5