This case involves a dispute over the release of mortgage documents between Premiere Development Bank and Panacor/Arizona corporations. Panacor obtained a loan from Premiere Bank and Arizona executed a real estate mortgage as security. Panacor later negotiated a take-out loan from IBA-Finance to pay off the Premiere Bank loan but Premiere Bank refused to release the mortgage documents. Panacor and Arizona sued Premiere Bank and won damages. Premiere Bank now argues executing the damages award would be unjust as the respondent corporations are winding up, but the Court ruled a judgment becomes final and must be executed unless special exceptions apply, which did not in this case.
This case involves a dispute over the release of mortgage documents between Premiere Development Bank and Panacor/Arizona corporations. Panacor obtained a loan from Premiere Bank and Arizona executed a real estate mortgage as security. Panacor later negotiated a take-out loan from IBA-Finance to pay off the Premiere Bank loan but Premiere Bank refused to release the mortgage documents. Panacor and Arizona sued Premiere Bank and won damages. Premiere Bank now argues executing the damages award would be unjust as the respondent corporations are winding up, but the Court ruled a judgment becomes final and must be executed unless special exceptions apply, which did not in this case.
This case involves a dispute over the release of mortgage documents between Premiere Development Bank and Panacor/Arizona corporations. Panacor obtained a loan from Premiere Bank and Arizona executed a real estate mortgage as security. Panacor later negotiated a take-out loan from IBA-Finance to pay off the Premiere Bank loan but Premiere Bank refused to release the mortgage documents. Panacor and Arizona sued Premiere Bank and won damages. Premiere Bank now argues executing the damages award would be unjust as the respondent corporations are winding up, but the Court ruled a judgment becomes final and must be executed unless special exceptions apply, which did not in this case.
This case involves a dispute over the release of mortgage documents between Premiere Development Bank and Panacor/Arizona corporations. Panacor obtained a loan from Premiere Bank and Arizona executed a real estate mortgage as security. Panacor later negotiated a take-out loan from IBA-Finance to pay off the Premiere Bank loan but Premiere Bank refused to release the mortgage documents. Panacor and Arizona sued Premiere Bank and won damages. Premiere Bank now argues executing the damages award would be unjust as the respondent corporations are winding up, but the Court ruled a judgment becomes final and must be executed unless special exceptions apply, which did not in this case.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
1|Page
PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ALFREDO C. FLORES
G.R. No. 175339 December 16, 2008
Facts: Panacor, a newly-formed corporation, acquired an
exclusive distributorship of products manufactured by Colgate. To meet the capital requirements of the exclusive distributorship, which required an initial inventory level of P7.5 million, Panacor applied for a loan of P4.1 million with Premiere Development Bank.
Panacor was granted a P4.1 million credit line as evidenced by a
Credit Line Agreement. As suggested, Arizona, represented by its Chief Executive Officer Pedro Panaligan and spouses Pedro and Marietta Panaligan in their personal capacities, executed a Real Estate Mortgage against a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-3475 as per Entry No. 49507 dated October 2, 1995.
Afterwards, Panacor negotiated for a take-out loan with IBA-Finance.
Pursuant to the said take-out agreement, IBA-Finance was authorized to pay Premiere Bank the prior existing loan obligations of Arizona in an amount not to exceed P6 million. However, despite such payment, Premiere Bank still refused to release the requested mortgage documents specifically, the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-3475. In such case by Premiere Banks adamant refusal to release the mortgage cancellation document, Panacor failed to generate the required capital to meet its distribution and sales targets. On December 7, 1995, Colgate informed Panacor of its decision to terminate their distribution agreement.
Thus, Panacor and Arizona filed a complaint for specific performance
and damages against Premiere Bank before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City which rendered a decision in favor of Panacor and IBA- Finance. 2|Page
Respondent corporations filed a motion for execution dated 25
August 2005 asking for the issuance of a writ of execution of our decision in G.R. No. 159352 where we awarded P800,000.00 as damages in their favor. The RTC granted the writ of execution sought. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order. Hence, the present petition for review.
Issue: Whether or not the execution of decision in G.R. No.
159352 would allegedly be iniquitous and unfair since respondent corporations are already in the process of winding up.
Held: No, A judgment becomes "final and executory" by
operation of law. In such a situation, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, and issuance thereof is a ministerial duty of the court. Jurisprudentially, the Court has recognized certain exceptions to the rule as where in cases of special and exceptional nature it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice to direct the suspension of its execution; whenever it is necessary to accomplish the aims of justice; or when certain facts and circumstances transpired after the judgment became final which could render the execution of the judgment unjust.
None of these exceptions avails to stay the execution of this
Courts decision in G.R. No. 159352. Premiere Development Bank has failed to show how injustice would exist in executing the judgment other than the allegation that respondent corporations are in the process of winding up. Indeed, no new circumstance transpired after our judgment had become final that would render the execution unjust. 3|Page
