[G.R. No. 169457. JUNE 14, 2006]

THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION vs. UNITED PACIFIC LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, et al.

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 14, 2006

G.R. No. 169457 (The Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. United Pacific Leasing and Finance Corporation, et al.)

Before Us are the Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss[1] the Petition at bar filed by Antonio Andal and Antonio Roxas Chua, Jr., the Counter Manifestation with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss[2] submitted by petitioner Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (now Solidbank), and Comment on Petitioner's Counter Manifestation filed in turn by Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr.[3]

To have a better understanding of the case, a brief narration of its antecedents is in order.

Petitioner filed a Complaint for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, docketed as Civil Case No. 87-39114, against United Pacific Leasing and Finance Corporation (UNAM) and its Board of Directors namely, Antonio Andal, Antonio Roxas Chua, Jr., Luis Tirso Rivilla, Jose Unson, Oscar Africa, Ricardo Zarate, Albert Ambs and their spouses. Eventually, all the spouses of the UNAM directors, together with directors Africa, Zarate and Ambs, were dropped as defendants from the Complaint. Defendant Rivilla, on the other hand, was declared in default.

UNAM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint which was denied. UNAM questioned the denial before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, but the appellate court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. UNAM appealed the Court of Appeals' Decision to us but we affirmed the denial of the Motion.

On 6 February 1995, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 87-39114, in favor of UNAM and against herein petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff is ordered:

a. to return to UNAM the sum of Seventeen Million Six Hundred Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine 60/100 Pesos (P 17,620,659.60) plus three per cent (3%) monthly interest from June 25, 1990;

b. to refund to UNAM the sum of Fifteen Million One Hundred Six Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-eight 25/100 (P15,106,568.25) with 12% interest per annum computed only from the day this decision is received by SOLIDBANK until fully paid;

c. to pay UNAM the sum of P500,000.00 as exemplary damages and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for attorney's fees;

d. to pay defendants Antonio Andal and Jose Unson for damages and attorney's fees the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) each and to pay the costs of suit.[4]

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioner and was granted by the RTC in an Order dated 9 August 1995, the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby resolves the pending incident as follows:

a. To GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration deleting the awards rendered in the questioned Decision;

b. To DENY plaintiff’s complaint with respect to the amounts prayed for in the complaint;

c. To DISMISS the complaint and the respective counterclaims of both parties in this case without prejudice to said parties litigating their respective claims before the Liquidation Court in Special Proceeding No. 86-35313 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which has jurisdiction over the subject matter in the complaint;

d) To LIFT/DISSOLVE the Writ of Attachment previously in this case.

No pronouncement as to cost.[5]

The case was appealed by all parties to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court rendered a Decision[6] on 22 December 2004 reversing the 9 August 1995 Order of the RTC, and reinstating with modification the 6 February 1995 Decision of the same court, to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated August 9, 1995 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

The Decision dated February 6, 1995 is hereby REINSTATED and MODIFIED to the effect that Solidbank is ordered to return to UNAM the sum of Twelve Million Seven Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Eight Pesos and Forty Four Centavos (P12,754,448.44), plus six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the trial court's decision. After finality of this decision, Solidbank is ordered to pay interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum until full payment of the awarded amount shall have been made.

The awards in favor of defendants Jose F. Unson and Antonio M. Andal are hereby DELETED. (Underscoring supplied).

From the foregoing Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 December 2004, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review.

Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr., alleged[7] that they were not furnished a copy of the instant Petition, thus, they prayed that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Section 3 in relation to Section 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court or, in the alternative, that the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 December 2004 be declared final and executory as to them.

On the other hand, petitioner countered that Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr. were never furnished a copy of the Petition as they had lost their legal standing in court, and they were, therefore, stripped of their legal personality to participate in the present petition. Petitioner ratiocinated[8] thus:

As to Roxas Chua, Jr.,

He ceased to have any legal standing in court when he failed to appeal the decision dated February 5, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46 in Civil Case No. 87-39114 without any award either in the form of damages or attorney's fees. The decision did not even mention his name, as though he is not a party defendant in the case. The said decision became final and executory insofar as he is concerned, after the 15-day period to appeal had expired.

As to Antonio Andal

He equally lost his legal personality to participate in the appeal proceeding when he failed to avail [of] the legal remedies provided for by the Rules for the purpose of assailing the decision promulgated on December 22, 2004 by the Court of Appeals (Third Division) deleting the award of damages and attorney's fees earlier granted by the lower court in favor of Antonio Andal.

Contrary to petitioner's arguments that they had lost their legal personalities to participate in the instant Petition. Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr. insist that they are still parties herein and argue[9]:

1. that defendants-appellants Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr., filed a notice of appeal with the RTC dated August 25, 1995;

2. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring the parties to file their respective Appellant's Brief and Appellee's Brief; x x x

3. Defendants Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr., filed their respective Appellants' Brief x x x.

We resolve to deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr.

As may be gleaned from the records, the award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of Andal by the RTC in its Decision dated 6 February 1995 was deleted by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 22 February 2004. Having been aggrieved by the said Decision of the Court of Appeals, Andal should have filed his own appeal before us, separately from petitioner.

As to Roxas Chua, Jr. it must be noted that the RTC, in its Decision dated 6 February 1995, found no evidence to show that he was in any manner financially or socially prejudiced by the acts of petitioner.[10] For its part, the Court of Appeals neither touched nor discussed this issue in its Decision of 22 December 2004; thus, Roxas Chua, Jr. should have also appealed separately from the said Decision of the Court of Appeals.

There is no gainsaying that Andal did not appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 December 2004 deleting the award of damages to him; and Roxas Chua, Jr. likewise did not appeal from the same Decision which remained silent as to any award pertaining to him. Well-settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil case, an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below.[11] Failing to file their separate appeals before us, Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr. are also not entitled to any relief from us and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 December 2004 has become final and executory as to them.

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Andal and Roxas Chua, Jr. is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

First Division

[11] Filinvest Credit Corporation v. The Intermediate Appelllate Court, G.R. No. L- 65935, 30 September 1988, 166 SCRA 155, 162.