Philippine National Bank v. Pacific Commission House
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Philippine National Bank (PNB) obtained a judgment against the Pacific Commission House (PCH) in the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 3, 1953. This judgment ordered PCH to pay PNB substantial sums under three separate causes of action, with legal interest accruing from June 21, 1949. 2. Procedural History: On May 31, 1963, PNB filed a complaint in the same court to revive the 1953 judgment and recover the awarded sums. PCH was declared in default for failing to answer. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint on January 3, 1964, noting that the complaint was filed more than ten years after the entry of the original judgment, and that the plaintiff had not presented evidence to establish the judgment's entry date within the ten-year prescriptive period. PNB's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: PNB appealed the dismissal, primarily arguing that the trial court improperly considered the defense of prescription motu proprio when PCH, being in default, had not raised this defense. PNB contended that Rule 9, Section 2 of the Rules of Court mandates that defenses not pleaded are deemed waived. PNB also argued that a partial payment made by PCH on September 29, 1954, interrupted the prescriptive period under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the dismissal, holding that prescription can be considered even if not pleaded when the plaintiff's own evidence clearly shows the action is barred, and that partial payment does not interrupt the prescription period for reviving a judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court motu proprio may properly consider the defense of prescription of action notwithstanding the defendant's failure to raise the same, not having appeared in the case nor filed an answer to the complaint. Whether a partial payment made on a judgment debt interrupts the prescriptive period for an action to revive the judgment.
Ruling
The decision of the trial court is affirmed. The complaint for revival of judgment is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the court considering prescription motu proprio: The Court held that while generally, defenses not pleaded are deemed waived, this rule does not apply when the plaintiff's own allegations or evidence clearly show that the action has prescribed. Citing Philippine National Bank vs. Amando M. Perez, et al. and Chua Lamko vs. Dioso, et al., the Court explained that if the facts establishing prescription are not disputed and appear on the face of the pleadings or evidence, the court has a duty to dismiss the action. In this case, the judgment was rendered on February 3, 1953, and the action to revive was filed on May 31, 1963, clearly exceeding the ten-year prescriptive period without any factual issue raised by the plaintiff regarding the dates. The Court cannot presume that the date of entry was within ten years prior to the filing of the complaint when the plaintiff itself did not present such evidence. On the issue of partial payment interrupting prescription: The Court ruled that partial payment on a judgment debt does not interrupt the prescriptive period for an action to revive the judgment. Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which provides for interruption of prescription by written acknowledgment or demand, does not apply to judgments. The Court distinguished between an action to collect a debt based on contract and an action to enforce a judgment. For judgments, the creditor can enforce them by a writ of execution, and an extrajudicial demand or acknowledgment by the debtor does not strengthen the rights already vested by the judicial decree. Furthermore, the Court noted that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the renovating effect of payment or acknowledgment was limited to actions founded upon contract, not upon a judgment.
Main Doctrine
The defense of prescription of action may be considered by the court motu proprio if the facts appearing on the face of the complaint or the evidence presented by the plaintiff clearly show that the action has prescribed, notwithstanding the defendant's failure to raise the defense due to default.