Case Digest (G.R. No. 100776)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Carlito Lee, G.R. No. 190144, August 01, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On April 26, 1988, Carlito Lee (plaintiff/respondent) sued Trendline Resources & Commodities Exponent, Inc. and Leonarda Buelva (defendants) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 61, Civil Case No. 88-702, seeking recovery of P5.8 million for losses in an investment scheme and asking for a writ of attachment. On May 4, 1988, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment that garnished Trendline’s Check-O-Matic Savings Accounts with Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust), totaling P700,962.10. The RTC rendered judgment on August 8, 1989, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable and awarding interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA G.R. CV No. 23166. While the appeal was pending, Citytrust acknowledged in a June 28, 1988 letter that it held the defendants’ deposit accounts. Citytrust later sought release of part of the garnished funds to pay Trendline’s tax obligations; the RTC and then the CA denied relief for want of jurisdiction or proof of alternative assets. On October 4, 1996, Citytrust merged with Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), with BPI as the surviving bank, and the Articles of Merger provided that all liabilities and obligations of Citytrust transferred to BPI.
The CA denied the defendants’ appeal on December 22, 1998; the RTC judgment became final and executory on January 24, 1999. Lee filed a Motion for Execution on July 29, 1999, which the RTC granted and issued a writ of execution; when implementation was attempted, a BPI manager denied possession or control of any deposits of the defendants and BPI said it could not locate Citytrust account records. Lee sought production of BPI/Citytrust account records; the RTC denied the motion on September 6, 2002. On December 16, 2002, Lee filed a Motion for Execution and/or Enforcement of Garnishment to compel delivery of the garnished deposits from BPI; the RTC denied that motion by orders dated March 1 and September 16, 2004, concluding there was no evidence BPI had taken over the accounts and noting BPI was not a party.
Lee filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 87911). In its February 11, 2009 Decision the CA annulled the RTC orders, found grave abuse of discretion, held that BPI became a party-in-interest by virtue of the S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the CA required to dismiss Lee’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as an improper remedy because the RTC orders were interlocutory?
- Did BPI become a party-in-interest to the case by virtue of its merger with Citytrust and thus subject to the writ of garnishment?
- Was Lee’s Motion for Execution and/or Enforcement of Garnishment improper because Section 43, Rule 39 (proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the property) was the appropriate remedy against a third party?
- Is BPI liable to deliver P...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)