Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The deceased spouses Jose and Salvacion Tayengco were the lawful owners of properties under receivership. Traders Royal Bank (TRB) was appointed as receiver pendente lite. The receivership proceeding was terminated. Procedural History: TRB rendered its final accounting, retaining P219,016.24 as its receiver's fee instead of turning over the entire fund. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 5, approved TRB's final accounting, including the deduction of its fee. The heirs of the Tayengcos assailed this order before the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that TRB's compensation should have been charged against the losing party, not from the receivership funds. The CA ruled in favor of the Tayengcos, ordering TRB to return the P219,016.24 and holding the losing parties liable for TRB's compensation. TRB's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: TRB appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues of res judicata and jurisdiction, and arguing that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's order and the Supreme Court's previous ruling regarding the settlement of the receiver's account.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals decision dated February 12, 1993, is barred by res judicata by virtue of the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 60076. Who is responsible for TRB's receiver's fee.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Costs were against the petitioner, Traders Royal Bank.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata: The Court held that the elements of res judicata were not met. Specifically, there was no substantial identity of causes of action between G.R. No. 60076, which concerned the annulment of an order requiring an accounting, and C.A. G.R. CV No. 21423, which questioned the order authorizing the deduction of the receiver's fee from the receivership funds. Therefore, the CA's decision was not barred by a prior judgment. On who is responsible for TRB's receiver's fee: The Court reiterated the provision of Section 8, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, which states that the receiver's reasonable compensation shall be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned as justice requires. The Court found that the trial court's order approving TRB's compensation to be charged solely against the funds under its receivership lacked legal justification. Consequently, the CA correctly reversed the trial court's order and held the losing parties liable for TRB's compensation, consistent with the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
The compensation of a receiver, as provided for in Section 8, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, is to be charged against the defeated party or apportioned among the parties as justice requires, and not deducted from the funds under receivership.