Philippine National Bank v.

Bondoc
July 30, 1965
Facts:
- In the first civil case, PNB (plaintiff-appellant) obtained a judgment
from the CFI Manila on June 29, 1949 against Joaquin Bondoc
(defendant-appellee) for an unpaid promissory note with the amount
of P10,289.60 plus interest (7% per annum computed from June 30,
1949) and attys fees. However, the judgment was not executed.
- After 5 years and upon the instance of PNB, the judgment (from the
first civil case) was revived on February 20, 1957 becoming the
second civil case. The CFI Manila condemned Bondoc to pay PNB
the amount of P16,841.64 plus 7% interest. However, the judgment
still was not enforced during the five years after that time.
- Upon the third civil case, on June 7, 1962, PNB instituted in the
CFI Manila the enforcement of the judgment rendered under the
second civil case. However, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss
(to revive the judgment) on the ground of prescription and lack of
cause of action.
- The lower court ruled that the right to revive the judgment has
already prescribed that more than 10 years has elapsed since it was
first rendered on June 29, 1949. It also ruled that the New Civil Code
does not provide for the revival of a revived judgment.
Issue:

- Whether or not defendants contention that 10 years has already

elapsed since the first judgment became final hence, the action to
enforce the judgment is already barred by statute of limitations is on
point.
Ruling:
- A judgment is revived only when the same cannot be enforced by
motion which is after 5 years from the time it becomes final. A
revived judgment can be enforced by motion within 5 years from its
finality.
- The Court ruled that the defendants contention is inconsistent
because reviving a previous judgment becomes a new and different
judgment. The Court also added that there are 3 different cause of
actions in the 3 civil cases.
- The judgment in the second civil action (February 20, 1957) in
which it provided the cause of action in the case, was rendered on
February 20, 1957 and became final in the same year.
- Following the provision of Article 1144 (3), it states that the right to
enforce a judgment prescribes in 10 years counted from the date the
judgment becomes final. In the case at bar, The action upon such
judgment must be brought within 10 years from 1957 until 1967. The
case was instituted on court on June 7, 1962 which is within the
prescriptive period.
Doctrine: The right to enforce a judgment prescribes in 10 years
counted from the date the judgment becomes final (Art. 1144 (3)).