GR 82009; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82009. April 10, 1989.
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM SAMARA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent William Samara filed a complaint against Citytrust Banking Corporation and Marine Midland Bank, NA. Samara purchased a US$40,000.00 demand draft from Citytrust, drawn against Marine Midland, for a joint venture. He later issued a stop-payment order, which both banks initially confirmed. Citytrust re-credited Samara’s account but later debited it after Marine Midland charged Citytrust’s account. The Regional Trial Court held both banks jointly and severally liable to Samara. Marine Midland filed a motion for reconsideration, but Citytrust did not appeal within the reglementary period.
Upon denial of Marine Midland’s motion, Citytrust filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court initially denied but later granted, setting aside an execution order. The Court of Appeals dismissed Citytrust’s appeal as filed out of time. Citytrust argued that Marine Midland’s appeal inured to its benefit, suspending its own period to appeal, and that execution was improper while a co-defendant’s appeal was pending.
ISSUE
(1) Can the appeal of a co-defendant prevent the execution of a final judgment against a defendant who did not appeal? (2) Does such an appeal inure to the benefit of the non-appealing defendant?
RULING
No to both issues. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The ruling in Reyes v. Court of Appeals is controlling: a motion for reconsideration filed by one defendant does not suspend the period for another defendant to appeal unless the latter adopts said motion or files its own. Citytrust did not adopt Marine Midland’s motion nor file its own appeal on time; thus, the judgment became final and executory against it. Execution is a matter of right once a judgment becomes final, as per Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The joint and several liability imposed means Citytrust can be compelled to pay the entire obligation regardless of Marine Midland’s separate appeal. The trial court’s duty to order execution against Citytrust was ministerial. The possibility of a reversal on Marine Midland’s appeal does not justify staying execution against Citytrust, as the judgment against it is already final. The Court emphasized that final judgments must be executed promptly to avoid injustice to prevailing parties.