Civil Procedure Digest

7/24/2019 Civil Procedure Digest

1/28

MENESESv. SECRETARY of AGRARIAN REFORM

FACTS: Petitioners are co-owners of a rice-land in Bulacan registered in the name of

their grandparents.

The rice-land was distributed to farmer beneciaries by virtue of PD No. 2.

Petitioners led with the !T" for determination of #ust compensation. Petitioners alleged

that from the time the land was distributed to farmer-beneciaries in $%2 up to the timeof the ling of the complaint& no payment or rentals has been made& and titles have

already been issued to the farmer-beneciaries.

Petitioners also alleged that the fair mar'et value of the property is P

(&)))&))).)).

The !T" dismissed the complaint for lac' of cause of action since the determination for

#ust compensation must be led in the D*! and not the special agrarian court.

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration. The !T" partially granted the

reconsideration setting aside the order of dismissal and archiving the case until the

amount of #ust compensation has been determined.

Petitioners then led a complaint with the D*!*B& however D*!*B dismissed the

complaint on the ground that it had no #urisdiction on valuation cases under PD. No. 2

as such it was under the administrative powers of the +,ce of the ecretary.

Because of the foregoing dismissal& petitioners led with the !T"& a motion to re-open

and calendar of case for hearing& which was granted by the !T".

The !T" by agreement of the parties& constituted commissioners to determine #ust

compensation but the same was dissolved.

*fter Pre-trial& petitioners were scheduled to present their evidence. During the hearing

the parties agreed as to the issues. hether or not plainti/0s were entitled to #ust

compensation as provided for under !* ((1 and not PD No. 2 as per the contention of

defendants.

The !T" dismissed the complaint saying that since the property was ta'en from

petitioners on +ctober 2$& $%2 under the D*!0s +peration and Transfer pursuant to PD

2& the #ust compensation must be based on the value of the property at the time of the

ta'ing.

Petitioners appealed to the "* praying that the case be remanded to the !T" for further

proceedings and reception of evidence on the #ust and fair mar'et value of the property.

"* dismissed the appeal. Petitioner0s led a motion for reconsideration but the same

was denied on the ground that it was led 3445 days late& and the "* found no cogent

reason to reverse or modify its decision.

6ence this P7T8T8+N 9+! !7:87 +N "7!T8+!*!8

ISSUES:3$5 That the decision of the "* is not with accordance with law and applicable

decisions of the upreme "ourt;

325 That the "* has departed from the accepted and usual course of #udicial proceedings

or has sanctioned such departure from the lower court.

RULING:

8t is true that petitioners< failure to le their motion for reconsideration within thereglementary period rendered the "* Decision dated =ay >)& 2))2 nal and e?ecutory.


2/28

9or all intents and purposes& said Decision should now be immutable and unalterable;

however& the "ourt rela?es this rule in order to serve substantial #ustice considering

3a5 matters of life& liberty& honor or property&

3b5 the e?istence of special or compelling circumstances&

3c5 the merits of the case&

3d5 a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the

suspension of the rules&

3e5 a lac' of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory& and 3f5

the other party will not be un#ustly pre#udiced thereby.

The e?planation of petitioners< counsel for the delayed ling of the motion for

reconsideration was that their law rm secretary failed to inform the court of their

change of address.This& of course& is not a valid e?cuse. *s a general rule& a client is

bound by the acts of his counsel& including even the latter


3/28

+ntimare led a notarial prohibition but was dismissed& and was ordered to ma'e

ad#ustments in the construction of his house. !espondents were then issued a new

building permit.

hile wor'ers were constructing respondent0s rewall& +ntimare red his shotgun and

threatened to 'ill anyone who would enter his property to wor' in respondent0s

construction. *s a result the rewall remained unnished& water seeped into the building

and damaged the oors and ceiling.

!espondents led an action for damages with application for preliminary in#unction and

restraining order against +ntimare before the !T".

+ntimare moved for summary #udgment and the court granted the same and

ordered +ntimare to pay the followingC

$. *ctual and compensatory damages in the form of unrealiEed income

and ban' amortiEation interest in the amount of P1&))).)) per month from @uly&

$%%( to eptember& $%%F;

2. The amount of P$1)&))).)) as reimbursement for the damage on thewood parAuet oors& wall paintings and ceiling;

>. P1)&))).)) as and by way of e?emplary damages; and

4. P>)&))).)) as and by way of attorneys fees.

+n appeal& the "ourt of *ppeals a,rmed the assailed summary #udgment with

modication&67!79+!7& premises considered& #udgment is hereby rendered infavor of the plainti/s& and the defendant is hereby ordered to pay theplainti/sC

$. "ompensatory damages in the form of unrealiEed incomein the total amount of Two 6undred 7ighty-eight Thousand Pesos3P2FF&))).))5 for *partments *& B and "& and ban' amortiEationinterest from @uly $%%( to @uly $%% in the total amount of Three6undred 9orty-four Thousand 7ight 6undred eventy-ve Pesos and4G$)) centavos 3P>44&F1.45;

2. The amount of P$1)&))).)) as reimbursement for thedamage on the wood parAuet oors& wall paintings and ceiling;

>. P1)&))).)) as and by way of e?emplary damages; and

4. P>)&))) as and by way of attorneys fees.

=eanwhile& while the case was on appeal& +ntimare r. died. 6e was survived byhis two sons& petitioners herein& who now led before the " a petition for review

8H7C 3$5 8s the summary #udgment rendered by the court properI

325 *re petitioners liable for the damages awardedI

!H8NC

+N 8H7 J $C 9or a summary #udgment to be proper& two 325 reAuisites mustconcur& to witC 3$5 there must be no genuine issue on any material fact& e?cept for the


4/28

amount of damages; and 325 the moving party must be entitled to a #udgment as a

matter of law.

hen& on their face& the pleadings tender a genuine issue& summary #udgment is

not proper. *n issue is genuine if it reAuires the presentation of evidence as

distinguished from a sham& ctitious& contrived or false claim.

8n the instant case& the summary #udgment was rendered after the presentation of

evidence by both parties in a full blown trial. !ecords show that during the two-year trial

of the case& +ntimare r. had presented his own witnesses& all four of them& and had

cross-e?amined the witnesses of the opposing party.

The trial court0s decision was merely denominated as summary #udgment. But in

essence& it is actually eAuivalent to a #udgment on the merits& ma'ing the rule on

summary #udgment inapplicable in this case.

+N 8H7 J 2C Petitioners contend that respondents were issued locational

clearance only on @uly $(& $%%( and hence& the start of the construction wor' should be

rec'oned not earlier than the said date. hen the shotgun incident happened on @uly $1&

$%%(& respondents had no locational clearance.

Petitioners also argue that the unearned rent and reimbursement of ban' interest

amortiEation should be counted up toand not fromthe completion of the rewor' because

the apartments could have been rented out and could have started to earn once the

rewor' was completed. Petitioners insist the period for the computation of unrealiEed

income should have been ten months.

astly& petitioners maintain that +ntimare r. did not act in bad faith nor abusively

in the protection of his rights& thus no e?emplary damages should be granted.

9or their part& respondents counter that petitioners raise pure Auestions of factalready ruled upon by the "ourt of *ppeals& hence& the instant petition should be denied

outright. ranting arguendothat the petition should be given due course& respondents

aver that +ntimare r.& despite 'nowledge that respondents had already acAuired a

building permit& nevertheless& threatened bodily harm on wor'ers of respondents to

prevent the construction. 6e should thus be held liable for damages for abuse of his

rights to the pre#udice of respondents.

!espondents alleged that rewor' on the rewall started from eptember $%%(& asevidenced by the receipts issued by the contractor. The compensatory damages in the

form of unearned rent started to accrue on +ctober $& $%%( until the completion of the

rewor' on *ugust $& $%% for *partment * 3a total of eleven months5 and until @uly $1&

$%% for *partments B and " 3a total of ten months and fteen days5.

astly& respondents posit that +ntimare r.0s threats with use of a rearm

constitute bad faith.

*t the outset& it bears stressing that& e?cept for the issue on e?emplary damages&

petitioners raise pure Auestions of fact& which may not be the sub#ect of a petition for


5/28

review on certiorari. ell-settled is the rule that the upreme "ourt is not a trier of facts.

hen supported by substantial evidence& the ndings of fact of the "ourt of *ppeals are

conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this "ourt& unless the

case falls under any of the following recogniEed e?ceptionsC

3$5 hen the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on speculation&surmises and con#ectures;

325 hen the inference made is manifestly mista'en& absurd orimpossible;

3>5 here there is a grave abuse of discretion;

345 hen the #udgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

315 hen the ndings of fact are conicting;

3(5 hen the "ourt of *ppeals& in ma'ing its ndings& went beyond theissues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of bothappellant and appellee;

35 hen the ndings are contrary to those of the trial court;

3F5 hen the ndings of fact are conclusions without citation of specicevidence on which they are based;

3%5 hen the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionersmain and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

3$)5 hen the ndings of fact of the "ourt of *ppeals are premised onthe supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence onrecord.[13]

Petitioners failed to show that their case falls under any of the above-Auoted

e?ceptions. 6ence& we see no reason to disturb the ndings of the "ourt of *ppeals&

which we nd supported by evidence on record.

e are li'ewise constrained from reversing the award of e?emplary damages. 7?emplary

damages are imposed by way of e?ample or correction for the public good.[14]+ntimare

r.s ring his shotgun at respondents wor'ers cannot be countenanced by this "ourt.

7?emplary damages in the amount of P1)&))) is proper.

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v! PCI" #A$%&'

()*(++,-

FACTS:!espondent P"8B*NK led complaint for a sum of money with prayer forpreliminary attachment against petitioner *8*"+N.

The rst cause of action was that *8*"+N had not paid its credit account with P"8B*NK

amounting to L4&4F&))). The second cause of action was that P"8B*NK su/ered

damages and prayed that *8*"+N pay 7?emplary damages& attorney0s fees& and the

cost of suit& and that *8*"+N is guilty of fraud in contracting the debt and in the

performance thereof or both.

By way of defenses& *8*"+N pleads in its answer the alleged Mevere 9inancial "risis

which hit the Philippines in @uly $%% which a/ected and put it out of business.

P"8B*NK led a veried =otion for ummary @udgment therein contending that

*8*"+N0s defenses are a sham and that the nancial crisis alleged in the answer is not


6/28

a fortuitous event that would e?cuse debtors from their loan obligations& nor is it an

e?empting circumstance under *!T. $2(2& "".

!T" in favor of P"8B*NK granted the motion for ummary @udgment.

Hpon *ppeal& the "* a,rmed with modication the ummary @udgment& reducing the

amount of attorney0s fees from 3P$&2()&)))5 to 3P$=5.

ith its motion for reconsideration denied by the "*& *8*"+N now appeals to the ".

ISSUES: 385 hether or not there is a genuine issue as to the material fact which rules

out the propriety of the summary #udgment;

3885 hether or not the award of *ttorney0s fees is e?orbitant or unconscionable.

RULING: 385 "* did not commit any reversible error in a,rming the summary #udgmentrendered by the trial court as& at bottom& there e?isted no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact.

3885 "*0s reduction in the award of attorney0s fees to only P

$&)))&))).))& given the factthat there was no full-blown trial.

Petitioner failed to append& to its O+pposition

O to the O=otion for ummary @udgment

O& O*,davitsO showing the factual basis for its defenses of Oe?traordinary deation

&Oincluding facts& gures and data showing its nancial condition before and after theeconomic crisis and that the crisis was the pro?imate cause of its nancial distress. 8tbears stressing that the QpetitionerR was burdened to demonstrate& by its O*,davitsO anddocumentary evidence& that& indeed& the Philippines was engulfed in an e?traordinarydeation of the Philippine Peso and that the same was the pro?imate cause of thenancial distress& it claimed& it su/ered.

* Ogenuine issueO is an issue of fact which reAuires the presentation of evidence asdistinguished from a sham& ctitious& contrived or false claim.

hen the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed& then there is no real orgenuine issue or Auestion as to the facts& and summary #udgment is called for.

The party who moves for summary #udgment has the burden of demonstrating clearlythe absence of any genuine issue of fact& or that the issue posed in the complaint ispatently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.

The QpetitionerR may have e?perienced nancial di,culties because of the O$%%economic crisisO that ensued in *sia. 6owever& the same does not constitute a valid#ustication for the QpetitionerR to renege on its obligations to the QrespondentR.

8t is a fundamental rule that contracts& once perfected& bind both contracting parties& andobligations arising therefrom have the force of law between the parties and should becomplied with in good faith. But the law recogniEes e?ceptions to the principle of theobligatory force of contracts. +ne e?ception is laid down in *rticle $2(( of the "ivil "ode&which readsC SThe debtor in obligations to do shall also be released when the prestationbecomes legally or physically impossible without the fault of the obligor.0

Petitioner cannot& however& successfully ta'e refuge in the said article& since it is

applicable only to obligations Oto do&O and not obligations Oto give.O *n obligation Oto doOincludes all 'inds of wor' or service; while an obligation Oto giveO is a prestation whichconsists in the delivery of a movable or an immovable thing in order to create a realright& or for the use of the recipient& or for its simple possession& or in order to return it toits owner.

PINEDA v! GUEVARA #F./%0a% 14* (++2-

FACTS: The uevara 6eirs led an action for the nullication of the certicates of title

of a parcel of land in =ari'ina.

Defendants were the estate of the late Pedro onEales& :irginia PereE& "risanta PereE&

@ose PereE& !oy uadalupe& ino Bucad and 9lorentino Pineda.


7/28

*ccording to the uevara heirs& the defendants illegally claimed ownership and

possession over a certain portion of the property.

Defendant Pineda led an answer with counterclaim& raising the defenses of lac' of

cause of action& prescription& laches and estoppel. 6e averred that he was a buyer in

good faith and had been in actual possession of the land since $%) initially as a lessor

and subseAuently as an owner.

Defendants :irginia& "risanta& and @ose& all surnamed PereE& led an answer with

compulsory counterclaim and averred that their father& =arcos PereE& purchased the

property from the late Pedro onEales and had it declared in PereE0s name for ta?ation

purposes.

The rest of the defendants& including the estate of Pedro onEales& also led an answer

with counterclaim& raising the same defenses of laches and prescription and res judicata.

The late Pedro onEales allegedly bought the property from the =unicipality of =ari'ina

in a public bidding on 21 *pril $%(( and had allowed defendants to occupy the property.

They asserted that the uevara heirs never actually occupied the property.

+n 4 December $%%1& the !T" set the case for hearing as if a motion to dismiss had beenled. During the hearing& the parties presented oral arguments and were directed to letheir memoranda.

*fter submission of memoranda& the !T" issued an +rder dated =ay $%%(& dismissingthe action on the ground of laches. The uevara heirs appealed the order of dismissal&claiming the denial of their right to due process.

"* set aside the !T"0s decision reinstating the action.

The appellate court ruled that a complaint cannot be dismissed under !ule $(& ection $

of the !ules of "ourt based on laches since laches is not one of the grounds enumeratedunder said provision. *lthough the !T" order of dismissal did not rule on the othera,rmative defenses raised by petitioners in the answer& such as lac' of cause of action&prescription and res #udicata& the "ourt of *ppeals discussed them and ruled that none ofthese a,rmative defenses raised were present to warrant the dismissal of the action.

+nly Pineda sought reconsideration. "* denied Pineda0s motion.

ISSUES: #I-hether or not the appeal of the heirs of uevara was improperly elevatedto the "ourt of *ppeals since& according to them& it raised a pure Auestion of law; and

#II-hether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the action on the ground of laches

without conducting trial on the merits.RULING:On . 5% &0.*Petitioner Pineda had ample opportunity to raise beforethe "ourt of *ppeals the ob#ection on the improper mode of appeal ta'en by the heirs ofuevara. This& he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised only in Pineda0smotion for reconsideration of the "ourt of *ppeals0 Decision. 6ence& this "ourt cannotnow& for the rst time on appeal& pass upon this issue. 9or an issue cannot be raised forthe rst time on appeal.

On . .6ond &0.*in reversing the !T"0s order of dismissal& the "ourt of *ppealsheld that Olaches could not be a ground to dismiss the complaint as it is not enumeratedunder !ule $(& ection $.O This is not entirely correct.

Hnder paragraph 3h5 thereof& where a claim or demand set forth in the plainti/0s pleadinghas been paid& waived& abandoned& orotherwise extinguished& the same may be raised ina motion to dismiss.

The language of the rule& particularly on the relation of the words OabandonedO andOotherwise e?tinguishedO to the phrase Oclaim or demand deemed set forth in theplainti/0s pleadingO is broad enough to include within its ambit the defense of bar bylaches.

However& when a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches& thetrial court must set a hearing on the motion where the parties shall submit not only

theirarguments on the Auestions of law but alsotheir evidence on the Auestions of fact

involved.

Thus& being factual in nature& the elements of laches must be proved ordisproved through the presentation of evidence by the parties. *s discussed above& anapparent delay in the ling of a complaint as shown in a pleading does not automaticallywarrant the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches..


8/28

The elements of laches areC 3$5 conduct on the part of the defendant& or of one underwhom he claims& giving rise to the situation of which the complaint see's a remedy; 325delay in asserting the complainant0s rights& the complainant having had 'nowledge ornotice of the defendant0s conduct as having been a/orded an opportunity to institute asuit; 3>5 lac' of 'nowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainantwould assert the right in which he bases his suit; and 345 in#ury or pre#udice to thedefendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant& or the suit is not heldbarred.%

hether or not the elements of laches are present is a Auestion involving a factualdetermination by the trial court.

REPU"LIC vs TUVERA #F./%0a% 1,* (++2-

FACTS:Twin pea's is a corporation engaged in real estate business. President =arcos

granted Twin pea's a Timber icense *greement 3T*5 in favor of the latter to operate on

2(&))) hectares of land with an annual allowable cut of ()&))) cubic meters of

mahogany and narra species. *s a result Twin pea's was able to engage in logging

operations.

ith President =arcos was ousted& "oraEon ". *Auino assumed presidency and

established the Philippine "ommission on ood overnment 3P"5 to trac' down the ill-

gotten wealth procured by =arcos. P" was granted the power to issue writs of

seAuestration. P" issued a rit of eAuestration on all assets& properties& records&

documents& and shares of stoc' of Twin Pea's on the ground that all the assets of the

corporation are ill-gotten wealth for having been acAuired directly or indirectly through

fraudulent and illegal means.

During trial after the prosection has rested its case and wiith leave of court& respondentsled a Demurrer to 7vidence on the basis of res #udicata citing the factual antecedentsculminating with the "ourt0s decision in 9elipe smael& @r. U "orp.& 8nc. v. ec. of7nvironment and Natural !esources.

andiganbayan sustained the demurrer to evidence. The !epublic Auestioned thecorrectness of the andiganbayan0s decision to grant the demurrer to evidence becauseit was not based solely on the insu,ciency of its evidence but also on the evidence ofrespondent mentioned during the pre-trial conference. The !epublic also challenges theapplicability of res judicata.

ISSUE: hether or not a demurrer to evidence may be granted on the ground of res

#udicata

RULING:*n e?amination of the andiganbayan0s !esolution shows that dismissal of thecase on demurrer to evidence was principally anchored on the !epublic0s failure to showits right to relief because of the e?istence of a prior #udgment which conseAuently barredthe relitigation of the same issue. 8n other words& the andiganbayan did not dismiss thecase on the insu,ciency of the !epublic0s evidence nor on the strength of respondents0evidence. !ather& it based its dismissal on the e?istence of the Ysmael

case which&according to it& would render the case barred by res judicata.

9or res #udicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subseAuent action& the followingreAuisites must concurC 3$5 the former #udgment or order must be nal; 325 the #udgment

or order must be on the merits; 3>5 it must have been rendered by a court having#urisdiction over the sub#ect matter and parties; and 345 there must be between the rstand second actions& identity of parties& of sub#ect matter& and of causes of action. henthere is only identity of issues with no identity of causes of action& there e?ists resjudicatain the concept of conclusiveness of #udgment.

8n smael& the case was between 9elipe smael @r. U "o.& 8nc. and the Deputy 7?ecutiveecretary& the ecretary of 7nvironment and Natural !esources& the Director of theBureau of 9orest Development and Twin Pea's Development and !ealty "orporation. Thepresent case& on the other hand& was initiated by the !epublic of

the Philippines represented by the +,ce of the olicitor eneral. No amount of

imagination could let us believe that there was an identity of parties between this caseand the one formerly led by 9elipe smael @r. U "o.& 8nc.


9/28

The andiganbayan held that despite the di/erence of parties& res #udicata neverthelessapplies on the basis of the supposed su,ciency of the Osubstantial identityO between the!epublic of the Philippines and 9elipe smael& @r. "o.& 8nc. e disagree. The "ourt in anumber of cases considered the substantial identity of parties in the application of res#udicata in instances where there is privity between the two parties& as between theirsuccessors in interest by title or where an additional party was simply included in thesubseAuent caseor where one of the parties to a previous case was not impleaded in thesucceeding case.

The "ourt nds no basis to declare the !epublic as having substantial interest as that of9elipe smael& @r. U "o.& 8nc. 8n the rst place& the !epublic0s cause of action lies in thealleged abuse of

power on respondents0 part in violation of !.*. No. >)$% and breach of public trust& whichin turn warrants its claim for restitution and damages. smael& on the other hand& soughtthe revocation of T* No. >1( and the reinstatement of its own timber licenseagreement. 8ndeed& there is no identity of parties and no identity of causes of actionbetween the two cases.

MANILA "AN7ING CORPORATION vs. UNIVERSITY of "AGUIO INC! #F./%0a%(1*(++2-

FACTS: Petitioner =anila Ban'ing "orporation 3=B"5 granted a P$4-=illion credit line to

respondent Hniversity of Baguio 8nc.3HB85 +n behalf of the university& it0s the vice

chairman Bautista signed promissory notes and e?ecuted a continuing surety agreement.

6owever& Bautista diverted the net proceeds of the loan. 6e endorsed and delivered the

four chec's representing their net proceeds to respondent roup Developers 8nc.3D85.

The loan was not paid.

The ban' led a complaint for a sum of money against Bautista and his wife before the!T". ubseAuently& the ban' amended the complaint and impleaded D8 as additional

defendant.

8n the amended complaint& the ban' alleged that it was unaware and did not approve the

diversion of the loan to D8; that it granted the loan without collateral upon the

university0s underta'ing that it would construct new buildings; and that D8 connived

with the university and Bautista& @r. in fraudulently contracting the debt.

8n its *nswer& the university claimed that the ban' and D8 approved the diversion.

*llegedly& :ictor . Puyat& then D80s President& and :icente . Puyat& then the ban'0sPresident& decided to use the proceeds of the loan.

+n December $4& $%%1& the ban' and D8 e?ecuted a deed of dacion en pago. *s

attorney-in-fact of Batulao Bio-oop 9arms& 8nc.& D8 ceded and transferred to the ban' a

parcel of land consisting of 2$)&))) sAuare meters located in Nasugbu& Batangas and

covered by Transfer "erticate of Title No. T-)F4. The dacion en pagowas for a

consideration of P

F million and in full settlement of the loan under the promissory

notes.

The university moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds thatC 3$5 there

was Ono more cause of actionO against it since the loan had been settled by D8; and 325

the ban' Ofailed to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time.O 8n an

+rder

dated *ugust $& $%%%& the trial court denied the motion since the Omatters relied

upon by the university were evidentiary in nature.O

+n +ctober $4& $%%%& the university moved to set the case for pre-trial on December 2&$%%%.

+n *ugust >& 2)))& the trial court resolved D80s motion to resolve the motions todismiss and defer pre-trial; e?punged from the record the deed of dacion en pago; andreinstated D80s motions to dismiss the amended complaint and cross-claim on the

ground that no compromise agreement was submitted for its approval.

+n *ugust 2%& 2))$& the university led a manifestation with motion for reconsiderationof the *ugust $& $%%% +rder denying the university0s motion to dismiss the amended


10/28

complaint. The university argued that the grounds for its motion to dismiss were notevidentiary as the deed of dacion en pago and the ban'0s #udicial admission thereof wereon record.

The ban' opposed the motion on the ground that the motion for reconsideration of the*ugust $& $%%% +rder was led after more than two years. The ban' noted that it wasthe university which moved to set the case for pre-trial; thus& its claim of not see'ingreconsideration of the *ugust $& $%%% +rder because of the scheduled pre-trial waspreposterous. The ban' concluded that the motion to dismiss lac'ed basis since the deedof dacion en pagohad already been e?punged.

8n the appealed +rder of *pril $$& 2))2& the trial court ruled that the ban' had no causeof action against the defendants because its claim for a sum of money had been paidthrough the dacion en pago. The trial court noted that the ban' even admitted thesettlement.

ISSUE:hether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint&

without trial& upon motion of respondent universityI

RULING: No!

* motion to dismiss under !ule >> in the nature of demurrer to evidence and would beproper only after petitioner had presented its evidence and rested its case. 8n the case at

bar& there had been no presentation of evidence yet and petitioner had not rested its

case. Therefore& the *ugust $& $%%% +rder properly denied the motion to dismiss for

being improper under either !ule $( or >>.

GSIS vs. P0d.n&a' G0a%an.. 8 A0%an6. #Nov.9/.% 3+* (+13-

FACTS: National 7lectrication *dministration 3N7*5 entered into a =emorandum of

*greement 3=+*5 with 8 insuring all real and personal properties mortgaged to it by

electrical cooperatives under an 8ndustrial *ll !is's Policy 38*! policy5. The total suminsured under the 8*! policy wasP

$(&>$&$4$&$((.F)& out of which& %1V

or P

$1&F%4&1F4&$)F.4) was reinsured by 8 with P*8 for a period of one year or from

=arch 1& $%%% to =arch 1& 2))).

hile 8 remitted to P*8 the reinsurance premiums for the rst three Auarters& it&

however& failed to pay the fourth and last reinsurance premium due on December 1&

$%%% despite demands. This prompted P*8 to le& "omplaint for sum of money

3complaint5 against 8 before the !T".

P*8 led a =otion for @udgment on the Pleadings averring that 8 essentially admittedthe material allegations of the complaint& such asC 3a5 the e?istence of the =+* between

N7* and 8; 3b5 the e?istence of the reinsurance binder between 8 and P*8; 3c5

the remittance by 8 to P*8 of the rst three Auarterly reinsurance premiums; and 3d5

the failureGrefusal of 8 to remit the fourth and last reinsurance premium. 6ence& P*8

prayed that the !T" render a #udgment on the pleadings pursuant to ection $& !ule >4

of the !ules of "ourt 3!ules5. 8 opposed the foregoing motion by reiterating the

allegations and defenses in its *nswer.

!T" issued an +rder granting P*80s =otion for @udgment on the Pleadings.

8 assailed the !T"0s +rder which granted P*80s =otion for @udgment on thePleadings through an appeal.

8 averred that the !T" gravely erred inC 3a5 rendering #udgment on the pleadingssince it specically denied the material allegations in P*80s complaint; 3b5 orderinge?ecution pending appeal since there are no #ustiable reasons for the same; and 3c5e/ecting e?ecution against funds and assets of 8 given that !* F2%$ e?empts thesame from levy& e?ecution and garnishment.

9or its part& P*8 maintained thatC 3a5 the #udgment on the pleadings was in order giventhat 8 never disputed the facts as alleged in its complaint; 3b5 the discretionarye?ecution was proper in view of the dilatory methods employed by 8 in order to

evade the payment of a valid obligation; and 3c5 the general insurance fund of 8&which was attached and garnished by the !T"& is not e?empt from e?ecution.


11/28

The "* ruled that #udgment on the pleadings was proper since 8 did not specicallydeny the genuineness& due e?ecution& and perfection of its reinsurance contract withP*8.

ISSUE:hether or not a #udgment on the pleading was proper.

RULING:The "* did not err in a,rming the propriety of a #udgment on the pleadings.

@udgment on the pleadings is appropriate when an answer fails to tender an issue& orotherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party0s pleading. The rule is

stated in ection $& !ule >4 of the !ules which reads as followsC

8n this relation& #urisprudence dictates that an answer fails to tender an issue if it doesnot comply with the reAuirements of a specic denial as set out in ections F and $)&!uleF of the !ules& resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverseparty0s pleadings.

8n this case& records disclose that in its *nswer& 8 admitted the material allegations ofP*80s complaint warranting the grant of the relief prayed for. 8n particular& 8admitted thatC 3a5 it made a reAuest for reinsurance cover which P*8 accepted in areinsurance binder e/ective for one year; 3b5 it remitted only the rst three reinsurancepremium payments to P*8; 3c5 it failed to pay P*8 the fourth and nal reinsurance

premium installment;and 3d5 it received demand letters from P*8.8t also did not refutethe allegation of P*8 that it settled reinsurance claims during the reinsured period.

ENCINAS VS AGUSTIN

This is a !ule 41 Petition for !eview on "ertiorari assailing the Decision dated 2)

November 2))F and !esolution dated >) =arch 2))% issued by the "ourt of *ppeals

3"*5. *,rming the ndings of the "ivil ervice "ommission 3""5& the "* found

petitioner "arlito ". 7ncinas 3petitioner5 administratively liable for grave misconduct and

conduct pre#udicial to the best interest of service- o/enses proscribed by ection 4(3b5

345 and 325& Boo' : of 7?ecutive +rder No. 2%2& or the *dministrative "ode of $%F -

and a,rmed his dismissal.

Fa6:

R.$ond.n A0&n and Ca0/anwere then both holding positions as 9ire

+,cer 8 in Nueva 7ci#a.

P.&&on.% En6&naW who was then Provincial 9ire =arshall of Nueva 7ci#a W

allegedly reAuired the respondents to pay him P1&))) in order not to relieve them

from their station at the "abanatuan "ity and re-assign them to a far ung area.

The respondents decided to pay in fear of the re-assignment& but they manage to

come up with P2&))) and prompting to direct them to come up with the balancewithin a wee'. hen they failed to deliver the balance& only causing the petitioner

to order for their re-assignment A0&nto "uyapo 9ire tation and Ca0/anto

Talugtug 9ire tation.

*s a result& the respondents decided to le a complaint for illegal transfer before

the "0%.a0 of F&%. P%o.6&onfor illegal transfer of personnel under !epublic *ct

3!.*.5 No. (%1 or the Department of 8nterior and ocal overnment 3D85 *ct of

$%%)and at the same time led another complaint before the C&v&'

S.%v&6. Co99&&on R.&ona' O;6. &n Pa9$anaand the C&v&'

S.%v&6. Co99&&on &n Ca/ana0an for violation of ection 43c5 of !.*. No.

($> or the "ode of "onduct and 7thical tandards for Public +,cials and

7mployees.

B9P X dismissed for insu,ciency of evidence.

""!+ issued its Decision& nding petitioner administratively liable for grave

misconduct and conduct pre#udicial to the best interest of service& and ordered his

dismissal from service.

Petitioner led a =otion for !econsideration.

The =otion& however& was subseAuently denied by the ""!+. 8t a,rmed its

previous ruling that the statements of petitioner0s witnesses were incompetent and

immaterial& having failed to disprove that petitioner had indeed e?torted moneyfrom respondents.


12/28

*ggrieved& petitioner led an *ppeal =emorandum with the "" main

o,ce. Based on the led complaints& the petitioner alleges that the respondents

are guilty of forum shopping by ling the two identical complaints. The petitioner

claims that the charges of dishonesty& grave misconduct and conduct pre#udicial to

public interest that were led before the "ivil ervice "ommission and the B9P are

in violation of the rules against forum shopping.

ISSUE:

hether or not respondents are guilty of forum-shopping

5 identity of

the two preceding cases where a #udgment rendered in the pending case will amount

to res #udicata in the other case.

9or res #udicata to bar the institution of a subseAuent action& the following reAuisites

include 3$5 the former #udgment is nal& 325 the court rendering the said decision has

#urisdiction over the parties and the sub#ect matter& 3>5 #udgement is based on

the merits& 345 between the two actions& there must be identity of parties& sub#ect

matter and cause of action.

8n applying the above reAuisites& the court held that the dismissal of the petitioner

based on the B9P complaint does not constitute res #udicata in relation to the ""

complaint. The dismissal by the B9P is not based on the merits& but based on the

recommendation of the fact nding committee in determining whether a formalcharge of an administrative o/ense may be led. There is therefore no rights and

liabilities of the parties that were determined in the said action with nality. The court

thereby a,rmed the dismissal of the petitioner and denied the petition.

CALDERON VS RO=AS

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under !ule 41 assailing the Decision dated

eptember %& 2))F and !esolution dated December $1& 2))F of the "ourt of *ppeals

3"*5 in "*-.!. ": No. F1>F4. The "* a,rmed the +rders dated =arch & 2))1 and =ay

4& 2))1 of the !egional Trial "ourt 3!T"5 of ParaYaAue "ity& Branch 2() in "ivil "ase No.

%-)()F.

FACTS:Petitioner& =a. "arminia ". "alderon and private respondent @ose *ntonio 9. !o?as& were

married on December 4& $%F1 and their union produced four children.

+n @anuary $(& $%%F& petitioner led an *mended "omplaint for the declaration of nullity

of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under *rt. >( of the 9amily

"ode of the Philippines.

+n =ay $%& $%%F& the trial court issued an +rder granting petitioner0s application for

support pendente lite. The aforesaid order and subseAuent orders for support pendentelite were the sub#ect of .!. No. $>%>> entitled M=a. "arminia ". !o?as v. "ourt of

*ppeals and @ose *ntonio 9. !o?as decided by this "ourt on *ugust $1& 2))$.

The Decision in said case declared that Mthe proceedings and orders issued by the trial

court in the application for support pendente lite 3and the main complaint for annulment

of marriage5 in the re-led case& that is& in "ivil "ase No. %-)()F were not rendered null

and void by the omission of a statement in the certicate of non-forum shopping

regarding the prior ling and dismissal without pre#udice of "ivil "ase No. %-)12> which

involves the same parties. The assailed orders for support pendent lite were thus

reinstated and the trial court resumed hearing the main case.


13/28

+n motion of petitioner0s counsel& the trial court issued an +rder directing private

respondent to give support in the amount of P42&2%2.1) per month starting *pril $& $%%%

pursuant to the =ay $%& $%%F +rder.

+n 9ebruary $$& 2))>& private respondent led a =otion to !educe upport citing&

among other grounds& that the P42&2%2.1) monthly support for the children as ?ed by

the court was even higher than his then P2)&F)).)) monthlysalary as city councilor.

*fter hearing& the trial court issued an +rder #Ma%6 2* (++)-granting the motion to

reduce support and denying petitioner0s motion for spousal support& increase of the

children0s monthly support pendente lite and support-in-arrears.

Petitioner0s motion for partial reconsideration of the =arch & 2))1 +rder was denied on

Ma 4* (++).

+n =ay $(& 2))1& the trial court rendered its Decisionin "ivil "ase No. %-)()F declaring

the marriage null and void; +rdering the respondent @ose *ntonio !o?as to provide

support to the children.

8n her appeal brief& petitioner emphasiEed that she is not appealing the Decision dated

=ay $(& 2))1 which had become nal as no appeal therefrom had been brought by the

parties or the "ity Prosecutor or the olicitor eneral. Petitioner pointed out that her

appeal is Mfrom the !T" +rder dated Ma%6 2* (++)& issued prior to the rendition of the

decision in the main case& as well as the Ma 4* (++)+rder denying her motion for

partial reconsideration.

By Decision dated eptember %& 2))F& the "* dismissed the appeal on the ground that

granting the appeal would disturb the !T" Decision of =ay $(& 2))1 which had long

become nal and e?ecutory. The "* further noted that petitioner failed to avail of theproper remedy to Auestion an interlocutory order.

Petitioner0s motion for reconsideration was li'ewise denied by the "*.

8ssueC

hether the =arch & 2))1 and =ay 4& 2))1 +rders on the matter of support pendente

lite are interlocutory or nal.

6eldC

8n interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to

be done to resolve the merits of the case. 8n contrast& a #udgment or order is considered

nal if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely& or terminates a

particular stage of the same action. "learly& whether an order or resolution is nal or

interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or noncompliance by a party to its

directive& as what petitioner suggests.

=oreover& private respondent0s obligation to give monthly support in the amount ?ed

by the !T" in the assailed orders may be enforced by the court itself& as what transpired

in the early stage of the proceedings when the court cited the private respondent incontempt of court and ordered him arrested for his refusalGfailure to comply with the

order granting support pendente lite. * few years later& private respondent led a motion

to reduce support while petitioner led her own motion to increase the same& and in

addition sought spousal support and support in arrears. This fact underscores the

provisional character of the order granting support pendente lite.

Petitioner0s theory that the assailed orders have ceased to be provisional due to the

arrearages incurred by private respondent is therefore untenable.

The remedy against an interlocutory order not sub#ect of an appeal is an appropriate

special civil action under !ule (1 provided that the interlocutory order is rendered

without or in e?cess of #urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.


14/28

6aving chosen the wrong remedy in Auestioning the sub#ect interlocutory orders of the

!T"& petitioner5 separate petitions for refund covering three di/erentperiods involving varying amounts as hereunder indicatedC

a5 "T* "ase No. (>(1 3@an. $ to @an. >$& 2)))5 for P>1&(1$&4$).));

b5 "T* "ase No. (>F> 39eb. $& 2))) to Dec. >$& 2))$5 for P(44&>1&($1.)); and

c5 "T* "ase No. (($2 3@an. $ to Dec. >$& 2))25 for >11&>F1&%2

8n three 3>5 separate decisionsGresolutions& the "T* found the claims for refund for the

amounts aforestated valid and thus ordered the payment thereof.

!espondent "ommissioner led a Petition for !eview with the "ourt of *ppeals 3"*5 Auestioning the "T*

!esolution dated November 4& 2))> which was issued in "T* "ase Nos. (>(1 and (>F>. The case wasdoc'eted as CA>G!R! SP No!?+,2).

!espondent "ommissioner led another appeal before the "* Auestioning the "T* Decision dated

December 4& 2))> issued in "T* "ase No. (($2. The case was doc'eted as CA>G!R! SP No! ?31,).

The B8! "ommissioner went to the "* on a petition for review assailing in CA>G!R!SP

No! ?+,2)the "T* decisionGresolution pertaining to consolidated CTA Ca. No! ,3,)

8 ,3?3. * similar petition& doc'eted as CA G!R! SP No!?31,)& was subseAuently led

assailing the "T* decisionGresolution on CTA Ca. No! ,,1(.

The "* denied the "ommissioner0s consolidated petition for review and also denied the

"ommissioner0s motion for reconsideration.

The "ommissioner went to the upreme "ourt -- .!. Nos. $(24-1 to defeat 9T"0s

claim for refund thus granted initially by the "T* and then by the "* in "*-.!. P No.

F)(1 and "*-.!. P No. F>$(1.

By Decision dated @uly 2$& 2))F& the "ourt found against the "ommissioner& disposing as

followsC

67!79+!7& the petition is D7N87D. The Decision of the "ourt of *ppeals in "* .!. P

No. F)(1& dated 2F eptember 2))4&and its !esolution& dated $ =arch 2))1& are

*998!=7D. No pronouncement as to costs.

9rom the foregoing narration& two critical facts are at once apparent. 9irst & the B8!

"ommissioner came to this "ourt on a petition for review in .!. Nos. $(24-1 to set

aside the consolidated decision of the "* in "*-.!. P No. F)(1 and "*-.!. P No.

F>$(1. econd& while the "ourt0s Decision dated @uly 2$& 2))F in .!. Nos. $(24-1

denied the "ommissioner0s petition for review& necessarily implying that the "*0s

appealed consolidated decision is a,rmed in toto& the fallo of that decidendi ma'es nomention or even alludes to the appealed "* decision in "*-.!. No. F>$(1& albeit the

main decision0s recital of facts made particular reference to that appealed "* decision. 8n

ne& there e?ists an apparent in consistency between the dispositive portion and the

body of the main decision& which ideally should have been addressed before the nality

of the said decision.

ISSUE:

RULING:

The upreme "ourt ruled that "*-.!. P No. F>$(1 should be included in the fallo of the

@uly 2$& 2))F decision.


15/28

8t is established #urisprudence that Othe only portion of the decision which becomes the

sub#ect of e?ecution and determines what is ordained is the dispositive part& the body of

the decision being considered as the reasons or conclusions of the "ourt& rather than its

ad#udication.O

8n the case of +ng "hing Kian "hung v. "hina National "ereals +il and 9oodstu/s 8mport

and 7?port "orporation& the "ourt noted two 325e?ceptions to the rule that the fallo

prevails over the body of the opinion& viEC

3a5 where there is ambiguity or uncertainty& the body of the opinion may be referred tofor purposes of construing the #udgment because the dispositive part of a decision must

nd support from the decision0s ratio decidendi;

3b5 where e?tensive and e?plicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the

body of the decision.

Both e?ceptions obtain in the present case. e nd that there is an ambiguity in the fallo

of +ur @uly 2$& 2))F Decision in .!. Nos. $(24-1 considering that the propriety of

the "* holding in "*-.!. P No.F>$(1 formed part of the core issues raised in .!. "ase

Nos. $(24-1& but unfortunately was left out in the all-important decretal portion of

the #udgment. The fallo of +ur @uly 2$& 2))F Decision should& therefore& becorrespondingly corrected.

CITY OF CE"U VS DEDAMO

This is a Petition for !eview on "ertiorari under !ule 41 of the !ules of "ourt see'ing to

annul and set aside the Decision$dated November >)& 2))1 of the "ourt of *ppeals 3"*5

ordering petitioner "ity of "ebu 3petitioner5 to pay twelve percent 3$2V5 legal interest

per annum on the unpaid balance of the #ust compensation paid to respondent *polonio

Dedamo& @r. 3respondent5. i'ewise assailed is the !esolution2dated =ay %& 2))( denying

reconsideration.

Fa6:

The present controversy is an o/-shoot of "ivil "ase No. "7B-$4(>2 for eminent domain

over two 325 parcels of land owned by spouses *polonio and Blasa Dedamo 3pouses

Dedamo5& led by the petitioner before the !egional Trial "ourt 3!T"5 of "ebu "ity. The

petitioner immediately too' possession of the lots after depositing P1$&$1(.)) with the

Philippine National Ban' pursuant to ection $% of !epublic *ct No. $().

During the pendency of the case& the petitioner and pouses Dedamo entered into a

"ompromise *greement whereby the latter agreed to part with the ownership of the

parcels of land in favor of the former in consideration of +N7 =88+N 7:7N 6HND!7D786T-8Z T6+H*ND 9+H! 6HND!7D P7+ 3P$&F(&4)).))5 as provisional payment

and #ust compensation in an amount to be determined by a panel of commissioners.

9orthwith& the panel was constituted and a report was submitted to the !T"

recommending the sum ofP2)&F2(&>>%.1) as #ust compensation. The report was adopted

and approved by the !T" in its +rder.

The !T" +rder was a,rmed by the "* and then by the "ourt& when the matter was

elevated for review in a petition doc'eted as .!. No. $42%$.

hen the said decision became nal and e?ecutory on eptember 2)& 2))2& the case

was remanded for e?ecution to the !T"& before which& a motion for the issuance of a writof e?ecution was led by pouses Dedamo.

+n =ay $(& 2))>& the !T" granted the motion and ordered the issuance of the writ.

8n the meantime& pouses Dedamo passed away and they were substituted in the case

by herein respondent.

+n December 2>& 2))>& the petitioner paid the respondent the sum of P$%&)>%&%>%.1)

which is the di/erence between the #ust compensation due and the provisional payment

already made.

+n =arch 24& 2))4& the respondent led a =anifestation and =otion before the !T" toorder the petitioner to pay interest on the #ust compensation computed from the time of

actual ta'ing of the lands.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_172852_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_172852_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_172852_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_172852_2013.html#fnt2


16/28

+n *pril >)& 2))4& the !T" denied the motion and ruled that it can no longer amend a

nal and e?ecutory #udgment that did not specically direct the payment of legal

interest. *damant& the respondent sought recourse before the "* asserting that the

petitioner is liable to pay legal interest.

The "* re#ected the respondent0s rst claim since the issue was belatedly raised during

the e?ecution stage and after the #udgment of #ust compensation attained nality.

Nonetheless& the "* found the respondent0s second contention meritorious. The "*awarded legal interest accruing from the time the !T" +rder dated December 2& $%%(

awarding #ust compensation was a,rmed with nality by the upreme "ourt up to the

time of full payment thereof in line with the ruling in 7astern hipping ines& 8nc. v. "ourt

of *ppealsthat when a court #udgment awarding a sum of money becomes nal and

e?ecutory& it shall earn legal interest of $2V per annum rec'oned from such nality until

satisfaction.

8n the case at bar& the petitioner prays for the annulment of the award of $2V legal

interest made by the "* in view of the termination of the eminent domain case uponpayment of the #ust compensation in satisfaction of the writ of e?ecution. The petitioner

further asserts that the nal #udgment in "ivil "ase No. "7B-$4(>2 which did not

e?plicitly pronounce the payment of interest can no longer be modied lest the basic

principles of remedial law be deled.

9or his part& the respondent avers that ection $)& !ule ( of the !ules of "ourt

mandating the payment of legal interest on #ust compensation forms part of every

#udgment rendered in eminent domain cases even if the same was not directly ordered

therein.

The respondent also claims that the award of #ust compensation must be rec'oned fromthe date of ta'ing of sub#ect lots and not from the date of nality of .!. No. $42%$

because #ust compensation& before it is paid& constitutes loan or forbearance of money

that entails the imposition of a $2V interest per annum.

RULING:

The petition is denied on the ground of res #udicata in the mode of conclusiveness of

#udgment.

* perusal of the allegations in the present case evidently shows that the petitioner

broaches the issues similarly raised and already resolved in .!. No. $2%42.Hnder the principle of conclusiveness of #udgment& when a right or fact has been

#udicially tried and determined by a court of competent #urisdiction& or when an

opportunity for such trial has been given& the #udgment of the court& as long as it

remains unreversed& should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with

them.$4tated di/erently& conclusiveness of #udgment bars the re-litigation in a second

case of a fact or Auestion already settled in a previous case.

The ad#udication in .!. No. $2%42 has become binding and conclusive on the petitioner

who can no longer Auestion the respondent0s entitlement to the $2V legal interest

awarded by the "*. The "ourt0s determination in .!. No. $2%42 on the rec'oning point

of the $2V legal interest is li'ewise binding on the petitioner who cannot re-litigate thesaid matter anew through the present recourse.

Thus& the #udgment in .!. No. $2%42 bars the present case as the relief sought in the

latter is ine?tricably related to the ruling in the former.

67!79+!7& premises considered& the Petition is hereby D7N87D.

LAND "AN7 OF T


17/28

FACTS:

!espondents spouses Placido and "lara +rilla 3respondents5 were the owners of a parcel of land

situated in Bohol containing an area of 2>.>4$( hectares and covered by Transfer "erticate of Title

No. $F4)$.

Department of *grarian !eform Provincial *grarian !eform +,ce 3D*!P*!+5 of Bohol sent

respondents a Notice of and :aluation and *cAuisition informing them of the compulsory acAuisition

of 2$.$2F% hectares of their landholdings pursuant to the "omprehensive *grarian !eform aw

3!epublic *ct Q!*R ((15 for P>$&$14.%% as compensation based on the valuation made by petitioner

and Ban' of the Philippines 3BP5.4

6owever& respondents re#ected the said valuation. "onseAuently& a summary hearing was conductedby the Provincial Department of *grarian !eform *d#udication Board 3Provincial D*!*B5 to determinethe amount of #ust compensation. *fter the proceedings& the Provincial D*!*B a,rmed the valuationmade by the petitioner.1

Not content with the decision& respondents led an action for the determination of #ust compensationbefore the !egional Trial "ourt of Tagbilaran "ity sitting as a pecial *grarian "ourt 3*"5. The casewas doc'eted as "ivil "ase No. ()F1 and was ra[ed to Branch >.

*fter trial on the merits& the *" rendered a Decision 67!79+!7& #udgment is hereby rendered?ing the #ust compensation of the land of petitioner sub#ect matter of the instant action at P.)) persAuare meter& as only prayed for& which shall earn legal interest from the ling of the complaint untilthe same shall have been fully paid.

Petitioner led a Notice of *ppeal. ubseAuently& respondents led a =otion for 7?ecution Pending*ppeal& pursuant to ection 2& !ule >% of the $%% !ules of "ivil Procedure.

*" issued an +rder granting the =otion for 7?ecution Pending *ppeal

Petitioner led a =otion for !econsideration& which was denied.

Petitioner led with the "* a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under !ule (1 of the!ules of "ourt with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order andGor preliminary in#unction.8t Auestioned the propriety of the *" +rder granting the e?ecution pending appeal. $>

The "* held that there was no valid and su,cient legal basis for the *" in ?ing the #ustcompensation for the sub#ect property at P$&4%&)2>.)). Thus& the "* remanded the case to the *"for the proper determination of #ust compensation.

8n disposing the case& the "* also too' into consideration the =otion for 7?ecution Pending *ppealthat was granted earlier by the *" and a,rmed by the "* and this "ourt

A%09.n: Petitioner argues that when the "* set aside the valuation of the *"& it necessarilymeans that such valuation can no longer be the sub#ect of an e?ecution pending appeal. 8t adds thatthe writ of e?ecution ordering the BP to pay respondents the amount of P$&4%&)2>.)) remainsunimplemented as of the time the "* rendered the decision annulling the aforesaid valuation.

Petitioner posits that once a decision is annulled or set aside& it is rendered without legal e/ect forbeing a void #udgment. Petitioner maintains that while the issue of the validity of the writ of e?ecutionissued by the *" had been upheld by this "ourt in .!. No. $12)(& the enforcement of the writ hadbeen rendered moot and academic after the decision of the *" was reversed and set aside by the"*.

+n their part& respondents contend that having attained nality& the decision of this "ourt in .!. No.$12)( could no longer be disturbed. =oreover& the reason advanced by the "* in denying themotion for partial reconsideration was merely an a,rmation of the decision of this "ourt in the saidcase.

RULING:

The "*& therefore& concluded that there was no su,cient legal basis for the valuation arrived at bythe *" in the amount of P$&4%&)2>.)). 8n ne& the "* e/ectively set aside and voided the Decisionof the !T" ?ing the amount of #ust compensation for the sub#ect property. *s correctly argued bypetitioner& being the fruit of a void #udgment such amount cannot be the proper sub#ect of the +rdergranting the motion for e?ecution pending appeal issued by the *".

* void #udgment or order has no legal and binding e/ect& force or e,cacy for any purpose. 8ncontemplation of law& it is non-e?istent. uch #udgment or order may be resisted in any action or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt13


18/28

proceeding whenever it is involved. 8t is not even necessary to ta'e any steps to vacate or avoid avoid #udgment or nal order; it may simply be ignored.2

*ccordingly& a void #udgment is no #udgment at all. 8t cannot be the source of any right nor of anyobligation. *ll acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal e/ect.6ence& it can never become nal& and any writ of e?ecution based on it is voidC "x x x it may be saidto be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever andwhenever it exhibits its head.">)

:erily& it appears that the writ of e?ecution pending appeal remains unimplemented as of the time the"* rendered its decision annulling the valuation made by the *". The monetary award havingemanated from a void valuation& it follows that the writ of e?ecution pending appeal cannot beproperly implemented. *s contemplated by the "*& the situation would have been di/erent if the writwas already enforced during the pendency of the appeal& for at that time the writ could still be validlyenforced since the valuation made by the *" still stands. Necessarily& as directed by the "*& anye?cess amount paid to respondents should be returned to petitioner.

Nonetheless& the amount of P>$&$14.%% representing the compensation o/ered by the petitioner forthe land ta'en& can still be properly awarded to respondents in accordance with Land Ban of the!hilippines v. ourt of #ppeals.>28n the said case& the "ourt allowed the release of the o/eredcompensation to the landowner pending the determination of the nal valuation of their properties.

The "ourt opined thatC

e are not persuaded. *s an e?ercise of police power& the e?propriation of private property under the"*!P puts the landowner& and not the government& in a situation where the odds are already stac'edagainst his favor. 6e has no recourse but to allow it. 6is only consolation is that he can negotiate forthe amount of compensation to be paid for the e?propriated property. *s e?pected& the landowner wille?ercise this right to the hilt& but sub#ect however to the limitation that he can only be entitled to aO#ust compensation.O "learly therefore& by re#ecting and disputing the valuation of the D*!& thelandowner is merely e?ercising his right to see' #ust compensation. 8f we are to a,rm the withholdingof the release of the o/ered compensation despite depriving the landowner of the possession and useof his property& we are in e/ect penaliEing the latter for simply e?ercising a right a/orded to him bylaw.

@UINTO VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioners 7leaEar P. \uinto and erino *. Tolentino& @r. led a petition for certiorari andprohibition against the "+=77" for issuing a resolution declaring appointive o,cialswho led their certicate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. 8n thisdefense& the "+=77" avers that it only copied the provision from ec. $> of !.*. %>(%.

I!

P%o6.d0%a' I0.

9irst& we shall resolve the procedural issues on the timeliness of the "+=77"s motionfor reconsideration which was led on December $1& 2))%& as well as the propriety of themotions for reconsideration-in-intervention which were led after the "ourt had renderedits December $& 2))% Decision.

i. Timeliness of COMELECs Motion for Reconsideration

Pursuant to ection 2& !ule 1(-* of the $%% !ules of "ourt& Q1Rin relation to ection $&!ule 12 of the same rules&Q(R"+=77" had a period of fteen days from receipt of noticeof the assailed Decision within which to move for its reconsideration. "+=77" receivednotice of the assailed Decision on December 2& 2))%& hence& had until December $&2))% to le a =otion for !econsideration.

The =otion for !econsideration of "+=77" was timely led. 8t was led on December$4& 2))%. The corresponding *,davit of ervice 3in substitution of the one originally

submitted on December $4& 2))%5 was subseAuently led on December $& 2))% stillwithin the reglementary period.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_194168_2013.html#fnt32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn6


19/28

ii. Propriety of the Motions for Reconsideration-in-Intervention

ection $& !ule $% of the !ules of "ourt providesC

* person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either ofthe parties& or an interest against both& or is so situated as to be adversely a/ected by adistribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an o,certhereof may& with leave of court& be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall

consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or pre#udice the ad#udicationof the rights of the original parties& and whether or not the intervenors rights may befully protected in a separate proceeding.

Pursuant to the foregoing rule& this "ourt has held that a motion for intervention shall beentertained when the following reAuisites are satisedC 3$5 the would-be intervenorshows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case; and 325 such right or interestcannot be adeAuately pursued and protected in another proceeding.QR

Hpon the other hand& ection 2& !ule $% of the !ules of "ourt provides the time withinwhich a motion for intervention may be led& vi$.C

7"T8+N 2. Time to intervene. %he motion for intervention may be &led at any timebefore rendition of judgmentby the trial court. * copy of the pleading-in-interventionshall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties. 3italics supplied5

This rule& however& is not ine?ible. 8nterventions have been allowed even beyond theperiod prescribed in the !ule& when demanded by the higher interest of #ustice.8nterventions have also been granted to a/ord indispensable parties& who have not beenimpleaded& the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trialcourt&QFRwhen the petition for review of the #udgment has already been submitted fordecision before the upreme "ourt&Q%Rand even where the assailed order has alreadybecome nal and e?ecutory.Q$)R8n L&9 v! Pa60&n&Q$$Rthe motion for intervention ledby the !epublic of the Philippines was allowed by this "ourt to avoid grave in#ustice andin#ury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties.

8n ne& the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sounddiscretion of the courtQ$2Rafter consideration of the appropriate circumstances.Q$>Restress again that !ule $% of the !ules of "ourt is a rule of procedure whose ob#ect is toma'e the powers of the court fully and completely available for #ustice. Q$4R8ts purpose isnot to hinder or delay& but to facilitate and promote the administration of #ustice. Q$1R

e rule that& with the e?ception of the 8BP "ebu "ity "hapter& all the movants-intervenors may properly intervene in the case at bar.

9irst& the movants-intervenors have each su,ciently established a substantial right orinterest in the case.

*s a enator of the !epublic& enator =anuel *. !o?as has a right to challenge theDecember $& 2))% Decision& which nullies a long established law; as a voter& he has aright to intervene in a matter that involves the electoral process; and as a public o,cer&he has a personal interest in maintaining the trust and condence of the public in itssystem of government.

+n the other hand& former enator 9ran'lin =. Drilon and Tom :. *pacible are candidatesin the =ay 2)$) elections running against appointive o,cials who& in view of theDecember $& 2))% Decision& have not yet resigned from their posts and are not li'ely toresign from their posts. They stand to be directly in#ured by the assailed Decision& unlessit is reversed.

=oreover& the rights or interests of said movants-intervenors cannot be adeAuatelypursued and protected in another proceeding. "learly& their rights will be foreclosed ifthis "ourts Decision attains nality and forms part of the laws of the land.

ith regard to the 8BP "ebu "ity "hapter& it anchors its standing on the assertion thatthis case involves the constitutionality of elections laws for this coming 2)$) National7lections& and that there is a need for it to be allowed to intervene ??? so that the voice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm#_ftn15


20/28

of its members in the legal profession would also be heard before this 6ighest Tribunal asit resolves issues of transcendental importance.

Prescinding from our rule and ruling case law& we nd that the 8BP-"ebu "ity "hapter hasfailed to present a specic and substantial interest su,cient to clothe it with standing tointervene in the case at bar. 8ts invo'ed interest is& in character& too indistinguishable to#ustify its intervention.

ASSOCIATED ANGLO>AMERICAN TO"ACCO CORP! VS CAFACTS:

pouses Paul PelaeE& @r. 3Paul5 and !oceli =amisay PelaeE 3!oceli5 were

employees of petitioner *ssociated *nglo-*merican Tobacco "orporation 3the

"orporation5. Paul wor'ed as ales upervisor and later as enior alesman

while !oceli wor'ed as secretary.

Paul was reAuired by the "orporation to post a bond to answer for any amount

which he might fail to turnover to the "orporation. 6e complied by e?ecuting amortgage bond over his family&F2).$( representing the overage and theaccount of Plainti/ Paul PelaeE& @r. and to release the mortgage on the parcel of land covered by& andrelease to plainti/s& Transfer "erticate of Title No. $11%%4;2. The defendants *ssociated *nglo-*merican Tobacco "orporation and 9lorante ". Dy are orderedto pay the plainti/s moral& e?emplary damages& attorney. The in#unction is made permanent.ith costs against defendants.

Hpon motion of the spouses PelaeE& the !T" amended its Decision in its F./%0a% 2* (++1+rder& to witC

67!79+!7& the =otion for Partial !econsideration is granted and the dispositive portion ofthe Decision dated eptember $4& 2))) is hereby modied as followsC

The defendants *ssociated *nglo-*merican Tobacco "orp. and 9lorante ". Dy are ordered to #ointlyand severally pay plainti/s the amount of PF4>&>F>.$$ representing the overage and the amount ofaward of moral and e?emplary damages and attorney


21/28

Petitioners received their copy of the 9ebruary & 2))$ +rder and on =arch (&2))$& they led a Notice of *ppeal of the eptember $4& 2))) Decision andthe 9ebruary & 2))$ +rder of the !T".

The spouses PelaeE& on the other hand& led a =otion to Dismiss the *ppeal and=otion for Partial 7?ecution dated *ugust 22& 2))$.

!uling on the motion& the !T" found that the petitioners Notice of *ppeal was

led timely Oonly insofar as the +rder of the "ourt dated 9ebruary & 2))$ is

concerned.O 6ence& the appeal insofar as to all matters not raised in the plainti/s

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mimisabayton
View:	234 times
Download:	1 times

Civil Procedure Digest

Documents