EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT

"xxx.

Secondly, the petitioners raise the question of res judicata and/or mootness of the present petition brought about by the Court of Appeals Decision in an entirely separate case, i.e., CA-G.R. CV No. 76188,[43] relating to a May 29, 2002 Order of the RTC denying respondent UBP's Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Notice to Pay, whereby the appellate court affirmed the same paving the way for the implementation of the May 4, 2000 and June 10, 2000 Orders of the RTC. But the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated April 19, 2006 fully explained why the petitioners' position is patently erroneous, viz.:

Indeed, CA-GR CV No. 76188 is limited to the propriety of the EXECUTION of the partial summary judgment while CA-GR SP No. 67931 involves the validity of the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT itself. EXECUTION of the questioned judgment WILL NOT PRECLUDE determination of the MERITS of such judgment x x x. In fact, the Rules of Court provides for RESTITUTION in case an EXECUTED JUDGMENT is REVERSED ON APPEAL, x x x Section 5 of Rule 39 reads:

SEC. 5. EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT - Where the judgment executed is reversed totally or partially on appeal, the trial court, on motion, after the case is REMANDED to it, may issue such ORDERS OF RESTITUTION as EQUITY AND JUSTICE may warrant under the circumstances.

Thus, the complete release of a portion of the disputed account is no obstacle to our August 26, 2005 Decision. RESTITUTION of said amount is in order, the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT which authorized its release having been NULLIFIED. [44]

Xxx."

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]

SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22