OMNIBUS NOTES FORMAT 2019

Use ARIAL font; Size = 10, No Spacing

REMEDIAL LAW>Civil Procedure>Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
Comment [Office1]: [#1 TOPIC] Subject, including
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, subtopics (based on the Bar Syllabus).
vs. TOMAS TOH, SR., AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214,
Respondents. If there is an overlap with another subject, please
G.R. No. 144018, June 23, 2003 indicate also, example:
Overlap with CIVIL LAW>Obligations and
(Second Division)
Contracts>Contracts>Essential Requisites
FACTS: Tomas Toh, Sr. filed a Complaint against Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC) seeking recovery Comment [Office2]: [#2 TITLE OF THE CASE]
of his bank deposits in the amount of P2,560,644.68 plus damages. FEBTC allegedly debited the said Caption in BOLD; roles in ITALICS. Indicate in full;
may be shortened by “et al.” if there are multiple
amount from Toh’s account without his consent and knowledge and applied the same as payment for the petitioners/defendants.
Letters of Credit availed of by Catmon Sales International Corporation (CASICO). Toh Sr. filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. Toh Sr. then filed a Motion for
Discretionary Execution by invoking Section 2 of Rule 39 on the ground of old age (79 years old) and the Comment [Office3]: [#3 CITATION] Indicate G.R.
number and date. Strictly follow this format.
probability that he may not be able to enjoy his money deposited in FEBTC. While this Motion was pending,
G.R. No. XXXXX (comma) Month, Day, Year
FEBTC filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC granted the Motion for Discretionary Execution. FEBTC then filed
a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the execution pending appeal. Comment [Office4]: [#4 DIVISION/EN BANC]
The CA affirmed the RTC. Hence, this petition. Indicate if Division or En Banc.
Comment [Office5]: [#5 FACTS] “FACTS” in ALL CAPS
ISSUE: Whether or not old age constitutes a good reason to allow execution pending appeal? and in BOLD; limit to relevant facts only; omit dates if
not material to the subject (procedure, prescription,
etc.); may be paraphrased from the full text
HELD: Yes. Discretionary execution is permissible only when “good reasons” exist for immediately
decision/resolution.
executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the time to appeal. Avoid the use of the words “petitioner’ / “respondent” /
“Good reasons” are compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes “appellant” / “appellee” / and words of similar import.
illusory, or the prevailing party may, after the lapse of time, become unable to enjoy it, considering the
Comment [Office6]: [#6 ISSUE] “ISSUE” in ALL CAPS
tactics of the adverse party who may apparently have no case except to delay. The Rules of Court does
and in BOLD; Identify particular issue(s); cite the
not state, enumerate, or give examples of “good reasons” to justify execution. The determination of what is grounds and/or circumstances affecting the issue. Put a
a good reason must, necessarily, be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In other words, the question mark at the end.
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 another’s judgment
or conscience. It must be so for discretion implies the absence of a hard and fast rule. In this case, the trial
court granted Toh’s motion for discretionary execution due to his advanced age.

Toh is already 79 years old. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be denied that he is already of
advanced age. Not a few might be fortunate to live beyond 79 years. But no one could claim with certainty
that his tribe would be always blessed with long life. 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 FEBTC.

Here, Toh obtained a favorable judgment in the trial court. But that judgment in Civil Case No. MC-99-643
is still on appeal before the Court of Appeals. It might even reach this Court before the controversy is finally
resolved with finality. As well said in Borja, “while we may not agree that a man of his years is practically
moribund, the Court can appreciate his apprehension that he will not be long for this world and may not
enjoy the fruit of the judgment before he finally passes away.” Comment [Office7]: [#7 HELD] “HELD” in ALL CAPS
and in BOLD; First line must directly answer the issue:
either Yes or No.
Lay down the legal basis or doctrine relied upon by the
N.B. Limit the case digest to one (1) page only unless there are several issues. In such case, indicate after the Court and apply the legal basis/doctrine to the given
FACTS, ISSUE #1, then ISSUE #2, and so on. The corresponding ruling shall be HELD #1. HELD #2, and so facts in the case. As much as possible, lift the exact
on. If there are 3 issues for example, the sequence shall be as follows: FACTS, ISSUE #1, ISSUE #2, ISSUE wording of the Supreme Court.
#3, HELD #1, HELD #2, HELD #3.