Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11 National Commercial Bankof Saudi Arabia V CA
11 National Commercial Bankof Saudi Arabia V CA
*
G.R. No. 124267. January 31, 2003.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
542
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
_______________
543
5
ber 15, 1993, it filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 6
The
motion, however, did not contain a notice of hearing.
On September 21, 1993, NCBSA filed a Manifestation
pointing out that PBC’s Motion 7
for Reconsideration did not
contain any notice of hearing.
On September 27, 1993, NCBSA filed a Motion 8
for Writ
of Execution of the decision of the trial court. On even
date, PBC filed a Motion 9
to Set “Motion for
Reconsideration” for Hearing alleging as follows:
xxx
_______________
544
13
13
sight of counsel.” 14This motion was just as vigorously
opposed by NCBSA.
By Order of March 2, 1994, the trial court denied PBC’s
Motion for Reconsideration of its Order of February 1,
1994, finding that “[t]here are no compelling reasons 15
to
warrant a liberal construction of the rules on Motions.”
PBC assailed before the Court of Appeals via 16Petition for
Certiorari the trial court’s March 2, 1994 Order.
By Decision of February 27, 1995, the 17
Court of Appeals
dismissed PBC’s Petition for Certiorari. On PBC’s Motion
for Reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals, by
Amended Decision of March 8, 1996, set aside its February
27, 1995 Decision and granted PBC’s Petition for Certiorari
and directed the trial court to resolve PBC’s Motion for
Reconsideration
18
(of the trial court’s August 24, 1993
Decision).
Justifying its setting aside of its February 27, 1995
Decision, the Court of Appeals held in its Amended
Decision:
_______________
545
_______________
20 Restated in the same Rule and Section numbers in the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
21 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Far East Molasses, 198 SCRA 689,
698-699 (1991).
22 People v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 418, 426-427 (1998).
23 Rollo at p. 23.
24 Id.,. at p. 323.
25 Id., at p. 217.
546
_______________
26 Id., at p. 218.
27 Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 367, 377 (1989).
28 Rollo at p. 45.
29 Id., at pp. 323-330.
547
30
record.” A reading of the records will show, however, that
the same three issues raised by PBC during the trial—
prescription, laches and lack of double payment—are what
are being raised in its Motion for Reconsideration of the
decision of the trial court.
PBC’s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s
decision was thus31 “in substance . . . a reiteration of reasons
and arguments” raised before the trial court for the
dismissal of NCBSA’s complaint, which reasons and
arguments had already been considered and resolved
against it on the merits by the trial court. The Motion for
Reconsideration was thus merely pro forma.
Technicality aside, en passant, on the merits of PBC’s
Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s decision, the
trial court did not err in brushing aside its main defense of
prescription—that NCBSA’s complaint 32
is “based on the
quasi-contract of solutio indebiti,” hence, it prescribes in
six years and, therefore, when NCBSA filed its complaint
nine years after the cause of action arose, it had prescribed.
Solutio indebiti applies where: (1) a payment is made
when there exists no binding relation between the payor,
who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the
payment, and (2) the payment is made through 33
mistake,
and not through liberality or some other cause. In the case
at bar, PBC and NCBSA were bound by their contract, the
letter of credit, under which NCBSA obliged itself to pay
PBC, subject to compliance by the latter with certain
conditions provided therein. As such, the cause of action
was34 based on a contract, and the prescriptive period is
ten, not six years.
Even PBC’s defense of laches is bereft of merit, the
cause of action not having yet prescribed at the time
NCBSA’s complaint was filed.
_______________
30 Rollo at p. 326.
31 Ibid.
32 CA Rollo at p. 85.
33 Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 274
SCRA 597, 612 (1997).
34 Article 1144, Civil Code.
548
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia vs. Court of
Appeals
Courts should never apply the doctrine of laches earlier than the
expiration
35
of time limited for the commencement of actions at
law.
The second set for the same amount, although it was received and
credited to [PBC’s] account with Chemical Bank New York, were
to be and subsequently transmitted37
to the account of Labroco
(International, Philippines) . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
——o0o–—
_______________