Philippine National Bank v. Nuevas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On April 12, 1948, Maximo de la Cruz, Edmundo S. Adriano, and Jaime R. Nuevas executed a promissory note for P1,500.00 in favor of the Philippine National Bank. The note was not paid at its maturity 120 days later. The bank filed a collection suit against the three makers on April 29, 1950, in the Municipal Court of Manila. The court declared two defendants in default and rendered a joint and several judgment against all three for P1,668.00, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. This judgment became final as no appeal was taken. 2. Procedural History: The judgment, not having been satisfied by execution within five years, prompted the Philippine National Bank to file a new action to revive the judgment on March 4, 1960, in the same Municipal Court. The Municipal Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Jaime R. Nuevas, while the suit against the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice. Defendant Nuevas appealed to the Court of First Instance. In that court, Nuevas opposed the plaintiff's motion to set the case for hearing, arguing that the trial could not proceed without including his co-defendants. The Court of First Instance denied this opposition and set the case for hearing. Nuevas then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the Court of First Instance's authority to proceed against him alone. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on January 31, 1963, ordering judgment against defendant Jaime R. Nuevas for P2,738.51, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. 3. The Petition: Defendant Jaime R. Nuevas filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue of whether a judgment rendered against several defendants, jointly and severally, can be revived against only one of them. The appellant contends that since the original judgment was joint and several, it cannot be revived against him alone. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if the revival of a solidary judgment can proceed against a single debtor when the other debtors are not included or have not been served.
Issue(s)
Whether a judgment rendered against several defendants, held 'jointly and severally' liable, can be revived against only one of those defendants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI's ruling, holding that because the appellant was held 'jointly and severally' liable in the original judgment, that judgment constitutes a solidary obligation. Under Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The Court emphasized that a revival suit is a 'new action' where the cause of action is the judgment itself, as previously held in Philippine National Bank vs. Bondoc (G.R. No. L-20236, July 30, 1965). Since the underlying judgment is a solidary obligation, the creditor's right to pursue any single debtor remains valid in the revival process. The Court also adopted the reasoning from American jurisprudence, specifically Richardson v. Painter, which posits that a judgment creditor is entitled to enforce a judgment against any debtor liable for the whole, and requiring the creditor to join all parties for the 'protection' of the debtors would impair the creditor's rights. The Court concluded that since the judgment could have been executed against Nuevas alone within the first five years, there is no reason why a suit to revive that judgment cannot be brought against him alone.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered against several defendants, jointly and severally, may be revived against one of them only, as the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors.