G.R. NO. 150134 - ERNESTO C. DEL ROSARIO AND DAVAO TIMBER CORPORATION, VS. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY[1] AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA ordered PDCP to execute a release or cancellation of the mortgages it was holding over the Mati real properties and the machinery and equipment, and to return the corresponding certificates of title to petitioners. And it ordered FEBTC to pay petitioners the amount of P965,000 with legal interest from the date of the promulgation of its judgment. FEBTCs motion for reconsideration 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 Complaint [17] against FEBTC to recover the balance of the excess payment of P4.335 million. [18] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-540, the precursor of the present case and raffled to Branch 143 of the RTC. In its Answer, [19] FEBTC denied responsibility, it submitting that nowhere in the dispositive portion of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 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 in Civil Case No. 94-1610 as they were merely claiming the amount of P965,000 from it, they were barred from claiming it. FEBTC later filed a Third Party Complaint [20] 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 [21] 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 in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 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