G.R. No. 144018; June 23, 2003
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, vs. TOMAS TOH, SR., AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214, Respondents.

FACTS

Tomas Toh, Sr. filed a complaint against Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTCO) for the recovery of ₱2.56 million, which the bank debited from his savings and current accounts. Toh alleged the debit was made without his knowledge or consent to cover the unpaid Letters of Credit of Catmon Sales International Corporation (CASICO). FEBTCO defended its action, citing a Comprehensive Security Agreement where Toh, along with his sons, acted as a surety for CASICO’s credit line. The bank argued that despite a subsequent renewal agreement that reduced the credit line and purportedly relieved Toh, Sr. as a surety, his obligation remained due to the absence of an express release. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Toh’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordering the bank to restore the amount with interest and pay damages.
Following the RTC’s decision in his favor, Toh, Sr., then 79 years old, filed a Motion for Discretionary Execution pending appeal under Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. He cited his advanced age as a compelling reason, arguing he might not live to enjoy the judgment’s fruits. The RTC granted the motion. FEBTCO, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of this grant of execution, directly filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed.

ISSUE

(1) Was the filing of a motion for reconsideration necessary before FEBTCO could assail the RTC’s order for discretionary execution via certiorari? (2) Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal based solely on Toh’s advanced age?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s resolutions. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory precondition for a certiorari petition, as it affords the lower court an opportunity to correct its own error. FEBTCO’s claim of extreme urgency was unjustified; the mere issuance of the execution order did not constitute an exception to this rule, especially since the appeal on the main case was still pending. On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. Advanced age, as established in precedents like De Leon v. Soriano and Borja, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, constitutes a “good reason” for discretionary execution under the Rules. The trial court’s factual finding on Toh’s age and his consequent apprehension was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is binding in this petition for review, which is limited to questions of law. The RTC’s order, based on a recognized legal ground, was a valid exercise of judicial discretion.