FEBTC (Far East Bank) vs. Toh Sr.

Facts: Tomas Toh Sr. filed a case against FEBTC, now merged with BPI for the recovery of his deposits in the amount of
2,560,644.68 which was allegedly credited by the latter without Tohs consent as payment for the letters of credit availed by
Catmons Sales Intl (CASICO) from petitioner FEBTC. Thus, when Toh subsequently issued 2 checks to Anton Construction, they
were dishonoured by FEBTC for insufficiency of funds.
It appears that earlier private respondent Tomas Toh, Sr., together with his sons, Tomas Tan Toh, Jr., and Antonio Tan Toh, had
executed a Comprehensive Security Agreement in favor of petitioner, wherein the Tohs jointly and severally bound themselves as
sureties for the P22 million credit facilities, denominated as Omnibus Line and Bills Purchased Line, earlier granted by petitioner to
CASICO. Said credit line expired on June 30, 1998, but the parties renewed the same for another year, subject to the following
amendments: (1) a reduction in the credit line from P22 million to P7.5 million; and (2) the relief of Toh, Sr., as one of the sureties of
CASICO.
In its answer, respondent FEBTC alleged that the debiting of Tohs bank account was justified due to his surety undertaking in the
event of the default of CASICO in its payment.
private respondent filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which petitioner opposed which the court granted in his favour.
Toh filed a Motion for Discretionary Execution by invoking Section 2, 1[5] Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. He prayed that
execution pending appeal be granted on the ground of old age and the probability that he may not be able to enjoy his money
deposited in petitioners bank.
While private respondents motion was pending before the RTC, petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the trial courts order.
RTC issued its order granting private respondents Motion for Discretionary Execution. CA affirmed the RTC order.
ISSUE: Whether the grant of the Motion for Discretionary Execution on the ground of advanced age of the private respondent in
order?
HELD: In this case, the trial court granted private respondents motion for discretionary execution due to his advanced age, citing our
ruling in De Leon v. Soriano.2[17] It concluded that old age is a good reason to allow execution pending appeal as any delay in the
final disposition of the present case may deny private respondent of his right to enjoy fully the money he has with defendant bank. 3
[18] The Court of Appeals found said ruling in conformity with sound logical precepts, inspired as it is by the probability that the lapse
of time would render the ultimate judgment ineffective. It further stressed that the trial court was in the vantage position to determine
whether private respondents advanced age and state of health would merit the execution private respondent prayed for.
In our view, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in sustaining the lower court. Discretionary execution is permissible
only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration
of the time to appeal. Good reasons are compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes
illusory, or the prevailing party may, after the lapse of time, become unable to enjoy it, considering the tactics of the adverse party
who may apparently have no case except to delay.
The Rules of Court does not state, enumerate, or give examples of good reasons to justify execution. The determination of what is a
good reason must, necessarily, be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In other words, the issuance of the writ of
execution must necessarily be controlled by the judgment of the judge in accordance with his own conscience and by a sense of
justice and equity, free from the control of anothers judgment or conscience. It must be so for discretion implies the absence of a
hard and fast rule

1
2
3