G.R. No. 94209 - Feati Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Far East Bank and Trust Co. (now merged into Bank of the Philippine Islands).
Respondent: Tomas Toh, Sr., a private individual, later joined in suit with his sons as sureties.
Lower Court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214.
Appellate Court: Court of Appeals (CA), which rendered decisions later challenged in this petition.

On March 17, 1999, Tomas Toh, Sr. filed Civil Case No. MC-99-643 seeking recovery of bank deposits amounting to P2,560,644.68 plus damages.
Toh alleged that the petitioner bank debited his savings and current accounts without his knowledge or consent, applying such funds as payment for Letters of Credit availed of by Catmon Sales International Corporation (CASICO).
The alleged unauthorized transaction resulted in dishonored checks issued by Toh due to insufficient funds despite an alleged withdrawable balance.

On August 29, 1997, Tomas Toh, Sr., along with his sons, executed a Comprehensive Security Agreement in favor of the petitioner.
This agreement bound the Tohs as sureties for a credit facility (initially P22 million) provided to CASICO.
The credit line expired on June 30, 1998, but was subsequently renewed—with amendments reducing the credit line to P7.5 million and attempting to relieve Toh, Sr. as surety, though the petitioner contended that no new surety undertaking was provided.

Respondent Toh, Sr. invoked a claim against the petitioner bank in relation to the alleged unauthorized debits.
On July 30, 1999, Toh filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was subsequently granted by the RTC on October 15, 1999.
The RTC’s Order dated March 10, 2000, ruled in favor of Toh, Sr., directing the petitioner to restore his bank deposits along with interest, and to pay additional sums as moral damages and attorney’s fees.

On March 29, 2000, while the case was pending appeal, Toh, Sr. filed a Motion for Discretionary Execution invoking Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court; he cited his advanced age (79 years) as justification for expedited enforcement.
The RTC granted this motion on May 26, 2000, thereby ordering execution of its judgment pending appeal.

On May 30, 2000, the petitioner’s appeal was given due course.
On June 26, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 59234), affirming the RTC's Order that granted discretionary execution based on Toh, Sr.’s advanced age.
The petitioner later filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA on July 10, 2000.

The primary controversy centers on whether the RTC’s decision to grant discretionary execution on the ground of the respondent’s advanced age constituted a grave abuse of discretion, and whether bypassing the Motion for Reconsideration procedure was permissible under the Rules.
The first submitted issue regarding the necessity to file a motion for reconsideration was rendered moot, leaving the focus on the second issue concerning the evaluation of “good reasons” for such execution pending appeal.

Whether the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is mandatory before assailing the RTC’s Order (dated May 26, 2000) granting discretionary execution in a special civil action for certiorari.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no error in the RTC’s decision to grant execution pending appeal on the ground of the respondent’s advanced age.

The first issue was deemed moot since the appellate court acknowledged the procedural bypass but still ruled on the merits.
The substantive and relevant issue pertains to the validity of the RTC’s and by extension, the CA’s reliance on the respondent’s advanced age (79 years) as a "good reason" justifying discretionary execution pending appeal.