Citytrust Banking Corporation v. Honorable Fourth Division, Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent William Samara purchased a US$40,000.00 demand draft from petitioner Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust) and invested it in a joint venture. The draft was drawn against Marine Midland Bank, NA (Marine Midland). After issuing a stop-payment order, Citytrust initially re-credited Samara's account. However, Citytrust later debited the account after Marine Midland debited Citytrust's account, prompting Samara to demand the return of the funds. 2. Procedural History: Samara filed a civil case against Citytrust and Marine Midland. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both defendants jointly and severally liable. Citytrust received the decision on March 19, 1986. Marine Midland filed a motion for reconsideration on March 26, 1986. The RTC denied Marine Midland's motion on May 5, 1986. Citytrust filed a notice of appeal on May 7, 1986, which the RTC initially denied, granting Samara's motion for execution. The RTC later reconsidered, gave due course to Citytrust's appeal, and set aside the execution order. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted Samara's motion to dismiss Citytrust's appeal. Citytrust's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: Citytrust filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in not holding that Marine Midland's appeal should have inured to Citytrust's benefit, thereby suspending Citytrust's period to appeal. Citytrust also argued that the CA erred in not ruling that immediate execution was improper even if Citytrust's appeal was late. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the rights and liabilities of Citytrust and Marine Midland were not inseparable and that Citytrust failed to provide any valid reason for its failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed by co-defendant Marine Midland inured to the benefit of petitioner Citytrust, thereby suspending Citytrust's period to appeal. Whether private respondent is entitled to immediate execution of the trial court's decision despite the pendency of an appeal by a co-defendant.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing Citytrust's appeal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Marine Midland's appeal inured to Citytrust's benefit: The Supreme Court held that the rights and liabilities of Citytrust and Marine Midland were not so interwoven and inseparable as to require a reversal as to one to operate as a reversal to the other. The Court noted that both defendants filed cross-claims against each other, indicating distinct defenses. Furthermore, the RTC decision explicitly ordered Marine Midland to reimburse Citytrust for any amount Citytrust might have to pay the plaintiff, establishing a clear line of responsibility. The fact that they were represented by different counsels also indicated they were acting independently. Therefore, Marine Midland's motion for reconsideration was for itself and did not suspend Citytrust's period to appeal. The Court reiterated that while dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon, parties must still adhere to the reglementary periods unless there are justifiable grounds like fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, none of which were alleged by Citytrust. Citytrust's failure to file its appeal within the reglementary period rendered the judgment final and executory against it. On the issue of immediate execution: The Supreme Court affirmed that private respondent is entitled to immediate execution. According to Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been duly perfected. Since Citytrust failed to appeal within the reglementary period, the RTC decision against it became final and executory. The Court emphasized that the trial court's duty to grant execution in such cases is ministerial. The argument that execution would lead to an absurd situation if Marine Midland's appeal were successful was dismissed, as the judgment against Citytrust had already become final and executory. The joint and several liability of the defendants meant that the finality of the judgment against one defendant did not depend on the outcome of the appeal of the other.
Main Doctrine
An appeal filed beyond the reglementary period, without justifiable grounds such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, will not suspend the period to appeal and will not suspend the execution of a final and executory judgment. The appeal of a co-defendant does not automatically inure to the benefit of a non-appealing defendant if their rights and liabilities are not so interwoven and inseparable as to require a reversal as to one to operate as a reversal as to all.