Digested Cases - CivPro

8/12/2019 Digested Cases - CivPro

1/53

Digested Casesfor

Civil

Procedure

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration)

ALABAN vs. CURT ! A""EAL#September 23, 2005

!acts$ Respondent Providio alleged in his petition for probate of the Last Will and

Testament of the Late Soledad Provido Elevencionado, the decedent, that he as

the heir of the decedent and the e!ec"tor of her ill# The RT$ rendered a decision

alloing the probate of the ill of the decedent and directed the iss"ance of letters

testamentar% to respondent# &onths later, petitioners filed a motion for reopening

of the probate proceedings and an opposition of the ill of the decedent, as ellas the iss"ance of letters testamentar% to respondent, claiming that the% are the

intestate heirs, as nephes and nieces, of the decedent# The% alleged that the%ere denied their da% in co"rt d"ring the probate proceedings before the RT$

beca"se the% ere not notified of the probate of the ill hich constit"tes

e!trinsic fra"d# 'ence, the% pra%ed for the ann"lment of the decision of the RT$

on the probate proceedings and a ne trial sho"ld be alloed#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the decision rendered b% the RT$ sho"ld be ann"lled on thegro"nd of e!trinsic fra"d for lac( of notice d"ring probate proceedings#

R&ling$The S"preme $o"rt r"led in the negative#The non)incl"sion of petitioners* names in the petition and the alleged

fail"re to personall% notif% them of the proceedings do not constit"te e!trinsic

fra"d# +ccording to the S"preme $o"rt, an action to ann"l a final "dgment on the

gro"nd of fra"d lies onl% if the fra"d is e!trinsic or collateral in character# When itprevents a part% from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the co"rt,or here it operates "pon matters pertaining not to the "dgment itself b"t to the

manner in hich it is proc"red, fra"d is e!trinsic# The overriding consideration

hen e!trinsic fra"d is alleged is that the fra"d"lent scheme of the prevailing

litigant prevented a part% from having his da% in co"rt#

&oreover, the re-"irement of notice shall be personall% given to (non

heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator# The ill, s"bect of controvers%,shos that respondent as instit"ted as the sole heir of the decedent# Petitioners

ere not instit"ted b% the decedent as her heirs that ill ma(e them hercomp"lsor% or testate heirs ho are entitled to be notified of the probate

proceedings "nder the R"les# .n this case, respondent had no legal obligation to

mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personall% notif% them of the

same# +ss"ming that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the alleged infirmit%

is c"red b% the p"blication of the notice hich is re-"ired in proceedings in rem#

The proceedings for the probate of the ill is one in rem, s"ch that ith thecorresponding p"blication of the petition, the co"rt/s "risdiction e!tends to all

persons interested in said ill or in the settlement of the estate the decedent#

Therefore, even if petitioners ere not mentioned in the petition for probate of the

ill, the% event"all% became parties thereto as a conse-"ence of the p"blication of


2/53

the notice of hearing#

Th"s, contrar% to their claim, petitioners ere not denied their da% in

co"rt beca"se the% ere not prevented from participating in the proceedings and

presenting their case before the probate co"rt#


DE L# #ANT# vs. EL%'ALDEebr"ar% 2, 2001

!acts$The herein petitioner and and respondents ere declared rightf"l oners ofa disp"ted lot in a previo"s case decided on +pril 2, 4# oth parties,

thereafter , filed their separate 6otices of +ppeal dated 7"ne 4, 4 and &a% 4,

4, respectivel%# S"bse-"entl%, the $+ iss"ed the 7"ne 2, 8 6otice to ile

rief, re-"iring petitioners and respondent Eli9alde to file their briefs ithin

fort%)five :;5< da%s from receipt of said notice#

The herein petitioners filed this present petition, alleging that the $+/s decisiondismissing their appeal for fail"re to file their respective appellants/ briefs andconsidered them ithdran# Petitioners filed a Pra%er for Reinstatement of +ppeal

on 7"ne 1, hich as verified solel% b% petitioner =icente delos Santos# .n

their &otion for Reconsideration, petitioners alleged that> :< the% did not have

an% (noledge of the prom"lgation of the assailed ?ecision of the $+ "ntil 7"ne

2, @ :2< the% never entered into an% amicable settlement ith respondents

delos Santos@ :3< their alleged signat"res in the &a% 21, 1 +greement ereforged@ and :;< the% never a"thori9ed their former co"nsel, +tt%# =ictoriano, to

ithdra their appeal# Th"s, petitioners pra%ed that> :< their &otion forReconsideration be considered as filed on time@ :2< the said +greement allegedl%

entered into b% petitioners and respondents delos Santos be considered as invalid@

:3< the portion of the assailed ?ecision dismissing their appeal be reconsidered@

:;< their appeal be reinstated@ and :5< the% be granted a period of ninet% :0< da%s

ithin hich to file their appellants/ brief# $+ denied the said motion sa%ing that

appellants had onl% "ntil 7"ne 8, to file their &otion for Reconsideration#

%ss&e$Whether or not $+ erred in den%ing the motion for reconsideration filed b%the petitioner#

R&ling$6o# The petition m"st be denied#Petitioners arg"e that their &otion for Reconsideration as filed on time

as the reglementar% period for the filing of it sho"ld be co"nted from the time

hen petitioners themselves obtained a cop% of the assailed ?ecision of the $+ on

7"ne 2, , and not from the time that their former co"nsel, +tt%# =ictoriano,received a cop% of said ?ecision on &a% 2;, #

Reglementar% period for filing a &otion for Reconsideration))Section of R"le 31, in con"nction ith Section 3 of R"le ; of the R"les of $o"rt,

provides for the period ithin hich a &otion for Reconsideration ma% be filed,

to it> Section # Aro"nds of and period for filing motion for ne trial or

reconsideration#BWithin the period for ta(ing an appeal, the aggrieved part% ma%

move the trial co"rt to set aside the "dgment or final order and grant a ne trial

for one or more of the folloing ca"ses materiall% affecting the s"bstantial rightsof said part%>

The period of appeal shall be interr"pted b% a timel% motion for ne

trial or reconsideration# 6o motion for e!tension of time to file a motion for ne

trial or reconsideration shall be alloed# :Emphasis s"pplied#

To recapitulate, a party-litigant may either file his notice of

appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Courts

decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the"final order") denying his motion for new trial or motion for

reconsideration !#iously, the new 15-day period may ea#ailed of only if either motion is filed$ otherwise, the decision

ecomes final and e%ecutory after the lapse of the original

appeal period pro#ided in Rule &1, 'ection

RULE 37 (New Trial or Reconsideration)

#"#. RAUD vs. !ABELLA E#TATE TENANT# A##C%AT%N* %NC.A#R# 6o# ;4823, +"g"st , 2005

!acts$ Tenants of the estate of ?on abella organi9ed themselves and formed the

abella Estate Tenants +ssociation :ET+< for ac-"iring the propert% anddistrib"ting it to its members# Dnable to raise the amo"nt to b"% the propert% the%

applied for a loan from the 6ational 'ome &ortgage inance $orporation

:6'&$


4/53

against the "rea" of orest ?evelopment, "rea" of Lands, Land an( of the

Philippines and the heirs of ernardo del &"ndo# .n the co"rse of the proceedings

both parties filed vario"s motions ith the RT$# +mong there ere $:


5/53

petition#

R&ling$ The petition has no merit# Dnder Section , R"le 38 of the R"les of$o"rt, the co"rt ma% grant relief from "dgment onl% Hhen a "dgment or final

order is entered, or an% other proceeding is ta(en against a part% in an% co"rtthro"gh fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence#I eca"se the% ere

allegedl% "nder the impression that +tt%# Ranot had prepared and filed thenecessar% pleading, petitioners, in their petition for relief from "dgment in the

trial co"rt, alleged that "dgment as entered against them thro"gh Hmista(e or

fra"d#I 'oever, that is not the fra"d or mista(e contemplated "nder Section ,

R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt# H&ista(e,I "nder Section of R"le 38, refers to

mista(e of fact, not of la, hich relates to the case# Hra"d,I on the other hand,

m"st be e!trinsic or collateral, the (ind hich prevented the aggrieved part% fromhaving a trial or presenting his case to the co"rt# Cbvio"sl%, petitioners/ mista(en

ass"mption that +tt%# Ranot had attended to his professional d"ties is neither

mista(e nor fra"d#

&oreover, "nder Section , HnegligenceI m"st be e!c"sable and

generall% imp"table to the part% beca"se if it is imp"table to the co"nsel, it is

binding on the client# To follo a contrar% r"le and allo a part% to dison his

co"nsel/s cond"ct o"ld render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and s"bect toreopening b% the mere s"bterf"ge of replacing co"nsel# What the aggrievedlitigant sho"ld do is see( administrative sanctions against the erring co"nsel and

not as( for the reversal of the co"rt/s r"ling#

.n this case, the $o"rt has rela!ed the r"le on the binding effect of

co"nsel/s negligence and alloed a litigant another chance to present his case

based on the folloing instances> H:< here the rec(less or gross negligence of

co"nsel deprives the client of d"e process of la@ :2< hen the application of ther"le ill res"lt in o"tright deprivation of the client/s libert% or propert%@ or :3 6o# The motion for reconsideration as filed o"t of time and the petitionerfailed to attach affidavit of merits#

While it is tr"e that the address of record of P$.*s co"nsel is entered as

the Krd loor, *RT +uilding,K hich is different from that of $C&&E, hich

is on the Kround loor, *RT +uilding,K it is e-"all% tr"e that notices served on

the latter had been reaching the former and that, in an% event, the P$. la%ershad never protested s"ch service on them Kthr" $C&&E#KService of the noticeof "dgment at the Aro"nd loor, LRT "ilding, sho"ld be deemed as effective

service on P$.*s attorne%s# The fail"re of the receiving cler( to deliver the notice

to them on the same da%, cannot in an% sense be deemed to constit"te that

e!c"sable negligence as o"ld arrant reconsideration "nder Section MaN, R"le

31 of the R"les of $o"rt# S"ccinctl% p"t, clients are bo"nd b% their co"nsel*s

mista(es.t f"rthermore appears that no other defense has been asserted b% P$.,

hether in an affidavit of merit attached to its to :2< motions for reconsiderationor otherise# .t o"ld th"s reall% ma(e no sense to set aside the "dgment reopen

the case and allo P$. to present evidence of defenses hich are

inconse-"ential, and o"ld not at all negate or mitigate its liabilit%#

.t is tr"e that hen fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence is

invo(ed as gro"nd of a motion for ne trial, it sho"ld Kbe proved in the manner

provided for proof of motions,K i#e#, b% Kaffidavits or depositionsK "nless the co"rtsho"ld direct that Kthe matter be heard holl% or partl% on oral testimon% or

depositions#K .t is also re-"ired that Kaffidavits of meritsK be attached to the

motion# + motion for ne trial gro"nded on fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable

negligence sho"ld th"s ordinaril% be accompanied b% to :2< affidavits> one,


6/53

setting forth the facts and circ"mstances alleged to constit"te s"ch fra"d, accident,

mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence@ and the other, an affidavit of merits, setting

forth the partic"lar facts claimed to constit"te the movant*s meritorio"s ca"se of

action or defense# The reason for the first is -"ite obvio"s> it is to enable the co"rt

to determine if the movant*s claim of fra"d, etc#, is not a mere concl"sion b"t isindeed borne o"t b% the relevant facts# The reason for the second is e-"all%

evident> it o"ld be "seless, a aste of time, to set aside the "dgment and reopenthe case to allo the movant to add"ce evidence hen he has no valid ca"se of

action or meritorio"s defense#

Where, therefore, a motion for ne trial on the gro"nd of fra"d, etc#, is

"naccompanied b% either or both affidavits, the motion is pro forma a scrap of

paper, as it ere, and ill not interr"pt the r"nning of the period of appeal# "t

here, as here, the motion for ne trial is fo"nded not onl% on fra"d, accident,mista(e or e!c"sable negligence, b"t also on the gro"nd of Kaard of e!cessive

damages,K as to hich no affidavit of fra"d, etc#, or of merits is re-"ired, hat

being re-"ired of the movant being to Kpoint o"t specificall% the findings or

concl"sions of the "dgmentK demonstrating the invo(ed gro"nd, the motion

cannot be denied aspro formasimpl% beca"se no affidavit of merits is appended

thereto, provided there be a specification of the findings or concl"sions of the

"dgment alleged to be erroneo"s beca"se aarding e!cessive damages# Thetenabilit% of the gro"nds is dependent "pon different premises# The "ntenabilit% ofone does not of itself, render the other "nmeritorio"s#


AR%/%NA -ALLE+ DE-EL"ENT CR"RAT%N vs# !L0A#R# 6o# 080 ?ecember 8, 5

!acts> 7ose Re%es S%tangco instit"ted a complaint for reconve%ance of a piece ofland against petitioner &ari(ina =alle% ?evelopment $orporation :K&ari(ina=alle%K< and &ilagros Liam9on# 7ose Re%es S%tangco alleged that he entr"sted

some f"nds to &ilagros Liam9on in order to p"rchase a propert% from its formeroners# &ilagros Liam9on, hoever, in alleged violation of the tr"st reposed

"pon her, p"rchased the propert% in her on name and had title to the same

registered in her name# Thereafter, she transferred title over that propert% to

petitioner &ari(ina =alle%, a closed corporation oned b% the Liam9on famil%#

The trial co"rt r"led in favor of S%tangco# The trial co"rt directed petitioner

&ari(ina =alle% to e!ec"te a ?eed of $onve%ance covering the propert% involved

in favor of S%tangco#

Petitioners moved for reconsideration# Re%es S%tangco opposed petitioners*

motion for reconsideration "pon the gro"nd that it as a pro forma one# 'econtended that the allegations of ins"fficienc% of evidence ere co"ched in ver%

general terms, contrar% to the re-"irements of Section 2, R"le 31 of the R"les of$o"rt#

%ss&e> Whether or not the &otion for Reconsideration of Petitioners is pro forma#

eld$6o# The r"le in o"r "risdiction is that a part% aggrieved b% a decision of atrial co"rt ma% move to set aside the decision and reconsideration thereof ma% begranted hen :a< the "dgment had aarded Ke!cessive damages@K :b< there as

Kins"fficienc% of the evidence to "stif% the decision@K or :c< Kthe decision as

against the la#K

+ motion for reconsideration based on gro"nd :b< or :c< above m"st point

o"t specificall% the findings and concl"sions of the "dgment hich are not

s"pported b% the evidence or hich are contrar% to la, ma(ing e!press reference

to the testimonial or doc"mentar% evidence or to the provisions of la alleged tobe contrar% to s"ch findings and concl"sions#

The movant is also re-"ired to point o"t s"ccinctl% why reconsideration

is arranted#

.n*u.on 'te#edoring Company # Court of /ndustrial Relations, the S"preme

$o"rt declared that it is not eno"gh that a motion for reconsideration sho"ld

state what partof the decision is contrary to lawor the e#idence$ it should also

point out why it is so#ailure to e%plain why will render the motion forreconsideration pro forma#

.n paragraph :a< of their motion, petitioners claimed that the evidences"bmitted as ins"fficient to sho that the donpa%ment for the p"rchase of the

EspaOa Street propert% had in fact come from private respondents* predecessor)in)

interest 7ose Re%es S%tangco# The trial co"rt had not disc"ssed the pres"mption of

reg"larit% of private transactions invo(ed b% petitioners#.n paragraph :b< of their motion, petitioners, b"ilding "pon their

paragraph :a


7/53

arg"ment in its decision#


LABERT CA#ALLA vs. "E"LE ! TE "%L%""%NE#* and%LAR# #. E#TE-ANE#

A#R# 6o# 38855, Cctober 2, 2002

!ACT#$ Private respondent filed to :2< criminal complaints against petitionerfor violation of the o"ncing $hec(s La :P 22


8/53

%ss&e$ .s the remed% petition for relief available before the $o"rt of +ppeals

R&ling$6o# .t is not available#Dnder R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt, petition for relief is of e-"itable

character# .t is alloed onl% in e!ceptional cases as hen there is no other

available or ade-"ate remed%# .t ma% not be availed of#here a part% has another

ade-"ate remed% available to him, hich is either a motion for ne trial or appealfrom the adverse decision of the loer co"rt, and he is not prevented from filings"ch motion or ta(ing the appeal# The r"le is that relief ill not be granted to a

part% ho see(s to be relieved from the effect of the "dgment hen the loss of

the remed% at la is d"e to his on negligence, or a mista(en mode of proced"re@

otherise, the petition for relief ill be tantamo"nt to reviving the right of appeal

hich has alread% been lost either beca"se of ine!c"sable negligence or d"e to a

mista(e in the mode of proced"re ta(en b% co"nsel$iting Section 2 of R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt, the S"preme $o"rt

held that, a part% ho is prevented from ta(ing an appeal from a "dgment or finalorder of a co"rt b% reason of fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence,

ma% file in the same co"rt and in the same case a petition for relief pra%ing that

his appeal be given d"e co"rse# This pres"pposes that no appeal as ta(en

precisel% beca"se of an% of the reasons mentioned hich prevented him fromappealing his case# 'ence, a petition for relief "nder R"le 38 cannot be availed of

in the $+, the latter being a co"rt of appellate "risdiction# &oreover, "nder thepresent r"les, petitions for relief from a "dgment, final order or other proceeding

rendered or ta(en sho"ld be filed in and resolved b% the co"rt in the same case

from hich the petition arose# Th"s, petition for relief from a "dgment, final

order or proceeding involved in a case tried b% a m"nicipal trial co"rt shall be

filed in and decided b% the same co"rt in the same case, "st li(e the proced"re

folloed in the present Regional Trial $o"rt

The record shos in this case that petitioner filed a 6otice of +ppeal

ith the trial co"rt, hich the latter granted and thereafter ordered the elevation ofthe records to the $+# The $+ re-"ired him, thr" his former co"nsel, to file his

appellants brief# 'oever, he failed to do so# 'ence, the $+ considered his appeal

abandoned and dismissed the same accordingl%# "rthermore, his motion forreconsideration as also denied for having been filed o"t of time#

RULE 31 ((Relief fro2 0&dg2ents* rders or ter 4roceedings)

0UL% B. "URCN* 0R. vs# R "%L%""%NE#* %NC.A#R# 6o# 8218, September 24, 2008

!acts$The case stemmed from a complaint filed b% petitioner before the 6LR$#Petitioner or(ed as a seaman for the respondent &R& Philippines, .nc# ?"ring

his emplo%ment ith &R&, he s"ffered hernia for hich he as repatriated to the

Philippines# When he reported bac(, he as told b% &R& that there as no

vacanc% for him#

6LR$ dismissed the complaint for "tter of merit# Petitioner filed apetition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt ith the $+#

$+ dismissed the case d"e to formal infirmities# The he filed petitioner ith this

$o"rt a petition for revie on certiorari "nder R"le ;5 of the 1 R"les of $ivil

Proced"re assailing the Resol"tions of the $+, hich dismissed his petition for

certiorari# When s"ch petition as denied b% S$, he then filed this instant 4etitionfor relief fro2 5&dg2ent &nder R&le 31.

%ss&e$$an petitioner avail of a petition for relief from "dgment "nder R"le 38 ofthe 1 R"les of $ivil Proced"re from C"r resol"tion den%ing his petition for

revie

R&ling$6o# + petition for relief from "dgment is not an available remed% in theS"preme $o"rt#

.n ?ela $r"9 v# +ndres,0We reiterated C"r prono"ncement in &esina v#&eer,that a petition for relief from "dgment is not an available remed% in the

$o"rt of +ppeals and the S"preme $o"rt# The $o"rt e!plained that "nder the 1Revised R"les of $ivil Proced"re, the petition for relief m"st be filed ithin si!t%

:40< da%s after petitioner learns of the "dgment, final order or other proceeding to

be set aside and m"st be accompanied ith affidavits shoing the fra"d, accident,

mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence relied "pon, and the facts constit"tingpetitioner/s good and s"bstantial ca"se of action or defense, as the case ma% be#

&ost importantl%, it sho"ld be filed ith the same co"rt hich rendered thedecision, #i.>

Section # Petition for relief from "dgment, order, or

other proceedings# When a "dgment or final order is

entered, or an% other proceeding is thereafter ta(en
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/feb2007/146611.php%20%5C%20_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/feb2007/146611.php%20%5C%20_ftn14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_182718_2008.html%20%5C%20fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_182718_2008.html%20%5C%20fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_182718_2008.html%20%5C%20fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_182718_2008.html%20%5C%20fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/feb2007/146611.php%20%5C%20_ftn14


9/53

against a part% in an% co"rt thro"gh fra"d, accident,

mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence, he ma% file a petition

in s"ch co"rt and in the same case pra%ing that the

"dgment, order or proceeding be set aside#

:Dnderscoring s"pplied SE$T.C6#4%ecution upon udgments or final orders# E!ec"tion shall iss"e as a matter of

right, on motion, "pon a "dgment or order that disposes of the action or

proceeding "pon the e!piration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has


14/53

been d"l% perfected# There are instances, hoever, hen an error ma% be

committed in the co"rse of e!ec"tion proceedings pre"dicial to the rights of a

part%# These instances call for correction b% a s"perior co"rt, as here> < the rit

of e!ec"tion varies the "dgment@ 2< there has been a change in the sit"ation of the

parties ma(ing e!ec"tion ine-"itable or "n"st@ 3< e!ec"tion is so"ght to beenforced against propert% e!empt from e!ec"tion@ ;< it appears that the

controvers% has never been s"bmitted to the "dgment of the co"rt@ 5< the terms ofthe "dgment are not clear eno"gh and there remains room for interpretation

thereof@ or 4< it appears that the rit of e!ec"tion has been improvidentl% iss"ed,

or that it is defective in s"bstance , or is iss"ed against the rong part%, or that the

"dgment debt has been paid or otherise satisfied, or the rit as iss"ed itho"t

a"thorit%# + rit of e!ec"tion m"st conform to the "dgment hich is to be

e!ec"ted, s"bstantiall% to ever% essential partic"lar thereof, it is settled# .t ma% notth"s var% the terms of the "dgment it see(s to enforce, nor go be%ond its terms#

Where the e!ec"tion is not in harmon% ith the "dgment hich gives it life and

e!ceeds it, it has no validit%#

.n iss"ing the alias rit of e!ec"tion, the trial co"rt in effect ordered the

enforcement of the contract despite this $o"rt/s "ne-"ivocal prono"ncement that

albeit valid and perfected, the contract shall become effective onl% "pon approval

b% the President# .nd"bitabl%, the alias rit of e!ec"tion varied the tenor of this$o"rt/s "dgment, ent against essential portions and e!ceeded the terms thereof#The e!ec"tion directed b% the trial co"rt being o"t of harmon% ith the "dgment,

legal implications cannot save it from being fo"nd to be fatall% defective#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents)

-ALDE' vs. !%NANC%ERA AN%LAA#R# 6o# 83381, September 2, 200

!acts$ Petitioner and his ife, L%dia ?# =alde9, among others, filed a $omplaintfor a s"m of mone% against respondent inanciera &anila, .nc# Thereafter, the

RT$ rendered its ?ecision finding respondent inanciera liable to plaintiffs# +n

appeal as then filed ith the $+, hich affirmed the aard of act"al damagesand remanded the case to the RT$ for the determination of the aard for moral

and e!emplar% damages, as ell as attorne%/s fees# S"bse-"entl%, $ompromise+greements ere entered into among the parties# The said $ompromise

+greements ere approved# + rit of e!ec"tion as iss"ed# The plaintiffs

hoever filed a motion for the rescission of the $ompromise +greement on the

gro"nd that no pa%ment as e!pected from respondent inanciera# The motion

as denied b% the co"rt# Respondent inanciera filed an Drgent &otion for

E!ec"tion dated 6ovember 3, 2004 of the $ompromise +greement in $ivil $ase

6o# J)8)355;4# Petitioner =alde9, on the other hand, filed a motion for the

e!ec"tion# The RT$ of J"e9on $it%, ranch 221 denied respondent inanciera*s

"rgent motion and granted petitioner =alde9*s motion for e!ec"tion# Thereafter,respondent inanciera filed its &otion for Reconsideration, hich as event"all%

denied, prompting it to file a petition for certiorari ith the $+ on the gro"nd thatthe RT$ had committed grave ab"se of discretion amo"nting to lac( of or e!cess

of "risdiction# The $+ denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner =alde9@

hence, the latter no resorts to the present petition and ascribes to the $+#

%ss&e$Whether or not the co"rt of appeals has no "risdiction over the petition forcertiorari filed b% respondent#

R&ling$ $onsidering that an appeal as still available as a remed% for the assailedCrders of the RT$, the filing of the petition for certiorari as an attempted

s"bstit"te for an appeal# 6ecessaril%, it m"st be noted that the petition for

certiorari as filed on +"g"st 28, 2001 hen the -"estioned RT$ Crders had

alread% attained finalit%# The Crder became final hen respondent inanciera

received the RT$ Crder of 7"ne 8, 2001 den%ing the former/s motion forreconsideration on 7"ne 2, 2001# .nstead of filing a notice of appeal ithin thereglementar% period lasting "ntil 7"l% ;, 2001, respondent filed a petition for

certiorari, a% be%ond the reglementar% period## 'ence, the $+ had no

"risdiction to decide the said petition for certiorari#


NAT%NAL E RTAE !%NANCE CR"RAT%N -#ABA+AR%

!acts$ Petitioner, 6ational 'ome &ortgage inance $orporation is a AC$$ ithits on charter has in its emplo% respondents, mostl% ran()in)file ho claim the%ere hired after 7"ne 30, 8# The% claim additional benefits as provided b%

R#+# 6o# 4158# To implement the la the ?& iss"ed a circ"lar e!cl"ding those

ho ere alread% inc"mbent as of 7"ne 30, 8 and ho ere act"all% receiving

the said benefits# Petitioners filed a petition for mandam"s ith the trial co"rt


15/53

hich s"bse-"entl% granted it# The conflict arose hen the ?& sent a letter to

petitioner disalloing certain alloances, incl"ding those granted b% the trial

co"rt#

Respondents then filed for the e!ec"tion of the trial co"rt/s decision,

hich it s"bse-"entl% granted# The% so"ght for the garnishment of petitioners/f"nds "nder the c"stod% of the Land an( of the Philippines# Petitioner appealed

thro"gh certiorari, citing grave ab"se of discretion ith the $o"rt of +ppeals, thelatter dismissed the same finding the case lac(ing in merit#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the e!ec"tion of the "dgment is alloed in this case#

R&ling$6o, a favorable "dgment rendered in a special civil action for mandam"sis in the nat"re of a special "dgment# +s s"ch, it re-"ires the performance of an%other act than the pa%ment of mone% or the sale or deliver% of real or personal

propert% the e!ec"tion of hich is governed b% Section , R"le 3 of the R"les

of $o"rt3hich states> HE!ec"tion of Special 7"dgment#BWhen the "dgment

re-"ires the performance of an% act other than those mentioned in the to

preceding sections, a certified cop% of the "dgment shall be attached to the rit of

e!ec"tion and shall be served b% the officer "pon the part% against hom the same

is rendered, or "pon an% other person re-"ired thereb%, or b% la, to obe% thesame, and s"ch part% or person ma% be p"nished for contempt if he disobe%s s"ch"dgment#I

While the +pril 1, 200 ?ecision of the trial co"rt ordered petitioner to

pa% the benefits claimed b% respondents, it b% no means ordered the pa%ment of a

specific s"m of mone% and instead merel% directed petitioner to e!tend to

respondents the benefits "nder R#+# 6o# 4158 and its implementing r"les# eing a

special "dgment, the decision ma% not be e!ec"ted in the same a% as a"dgment for mone% handed don in an ordinar% civil case governed b% Section

, R"le 3 of the R"les $o"rt hich sanctions garnishment of debts and credits tosatisf% a monetar% aard# Aarnishment is proper onl% hen the "dgment to be

enforced is one for pa%ment of a s"m of mone%# .t cannot be emplo%ed to

implement a special "dgment s"ch as that rendered in a special civil action for

mandam"s#


A : C %N%ART CR"RAT%N* vs#-%LLAREAL* et.al.R. No. ;77

!acts$ RT$ iss"ed a Writ of E!ec"tion re-"iring petitioner to deposit an amo"ntof rental pl"s 2 %earl% interest, comp"ted from the date of petitioner/s receiptof the demand letter# Respondents filed a &otion for Recomp"tation claiming that

the comp"tation sho"ld incl"de a monthl% interest of 3 on the total amo"nt ofrental and other charges not paid on time, in accordance ith the $ontract of

Lease# 'oever, RT$ denied respondent/s motion prompting the latter to file a

Petition for Certiorari"nder R"le 45, before the $o"rt of +ppeals, hich r"led in

favor of the respondents# .n the assailed ?ecision, the appellate co"rt fo"nd that

petitioner consigned the rental pa%ments after the% fell d"e and, th"s, it r"led that

the 3 interest stip"lated in the $ontract of Lease sho"ld be imposed#Petitioner avers that the respondents sho"ld have filed ith the $o"rt of

+ppeals an ordinar% appeal instead of a special civil action for certiorari, hen it

-"estioned the comp"tation made b% the ParaOa-"e RT$, ranch ;, of the

rentals d"e the oner of the s"bect propert%#

%ss&e$What is the proper remed% against the order of e!ec"tion#

eld$The proper remed% is a special civil action for certiorari "nder R"le 45#Section , R"le ; of the R"les of $o"rt, hich provides>

Section # S"bect of appeal# +n appeal ma% be ta(en from a

"dgment or final order that completel% disposes of the case, or

of a partic"lar matter therein hen declared b% these R"les to be

appealable#

6o appeal ma% be ta(en from>:f< an order of e!ec"tion@

.n all the above instances here the "dgment or final order isnot appealable, the aggrieved part% ma% file an appropriate

special civil action "nder R"le 45#

.t is e!plicit from the afore)-"oted provision that no appeal ma% be ta(en

from an order of e!ec"tion@ instead, s"ch order ma% be challenged b% theaggrieved part% #iaa special civil action for certiorari"nder R"le 45 of the R"les

of $o"rt# Respondents filed the petition to -"estion the Writ of E!ec"tion iss"edb% RT$, hich comp"ted the rentals to be paid b% the petitioner to hoever is

declared the oner of the s"bect propert%, itho"t incl"ding the 3 penalt%

interest stip"lated in the Lease $ontract# $ontrar% to the position ta(en b% the

petitioner, respondents/ reco"rse to an appeal o"ld have been "navailing "nder


16/53

Section , R"le ;, of the R"les of $o"rt# The filing of a special civil action for

certiorari"nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt as the proper remed% -"estioning

an order of e!ec"tion#


"%L%""%NE -ETERAN# BAN/vs# %NTERED%ATE A""ELLATECURT

A#R# 6o# 1342 Cctober 23, 8

!acts$Private respondent Emiliana $# ?oblon filed an action against petitionerPhilippine =eterans an( for reformation of instr"ment and damages ith pra%er

for a rit of preliminar% in"nction ith the Regional Trial $o"rt#

The co"rt rendered a s"mmar% "dgment in favor of the plaintiff#

&eanhile, the &onetar% oard of the $entral an( iss"ed # Resol"tion 6o#

34;, thereb% placing Philippine =eterans an( "nder receivership#

Private respondent Emiliana ?oblon filed an e%-partemotion for aliasrit of e!ec"tion hich as opposed b% the petitioner ban( on the gro"nd that thelatter is "nder receivership and that all claims against it cannot be enforced "ntil

after li-"idation# Cn the same date, the respondent "dge granted the said motion

for the rit of e!ec"tion#

%ss&e$Whether or not the "dgment of the Regional Trial $o"rt hich aardeddamages to private respondent Emiliana ?oblon, can be legall% enforced againstpetitioner b% e!ec"tion, after petitioner has been placed "nder li-"idation b% the

&onetar% oard of the $entral an(#

eld$6o# Petitioner contends that the final "dgment in m"st be satisfied in theli-"idation proceedings considering that the assets of petitioner are alread%

in custodia legisof the li-"idator, and that the sales at p"blic a"ction cond"cted b%the respondent sheriff to enforce the rit of e!ec"tion iss"ed b% respondent "dge

are illegal and void#The r"le that once a decision has become final and e!ec"tor%, it is the

ministerial d"t% of the co"rt to order its e!ec"tion, admits of certain e!ceptions as

in cases of special and e!ceptional nat"re here it becomes imperative in the

higher interest of "stice to direct the s"spension of its e!ec"tion@ or henever it is

necessar% to accomplish the aims of "stice@ or when certain facts and

circumstances transpired after the udgment ecame final which would render the

e%ecution of the udgment unust:Lipana v# ?evelopment an( of Ri9al, 6o# L)

1388;, September 2;, 81


17/53

the 6LR$ decision# The petitioner opposed, invo(ing her conviction in the

criminal case# 'oever, the 6LR$ s"stained her on the gro"nd that its decision

had been affirmed b% this $o"rt and had long become final and e!ec"tor%#

Sampag"ita then came to this $o"rt for relief#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the decision of the 6LR$ calling for reinstatement and the

pa%ment of bac( ages to petitioner sho"ld be enforced#

R&ling$ .t is tr"e that once a "dgment has become final and e!ec"tor%, it can nolonger be dist"rbed e!cept onl% for the correction of clerical errors or here

s"pervening events render its e!ec"tion impossible or "n"st# .n the latter event,

the interested part% ma% as( the co"rt to modif% the "dgment to harmoni9e it ith

"stice and the facts# There is no disp"te in the case at bar that the decision of therespondent 6LR$ ordering the private respondents reinstatement ith bac( ages

had indeed become final and e!ec"tor%# Even so, e find, in light of the

s"bse-"ent developments, that the 6LR$ as not correct in s"staining the

implementation of that decision#


-ALEN'NA vs. CA224 S$R+ 34

!acts$ + complaint as filed b% private respondents for recover% of inheritance,real propert% ith damages against petitioner before the RT$ hich r"led in favor

of the former# Petitioner filed ith the co"rt a 6uoa K&otion for +pproval of?efendants* +cco"nting +nd Proposal of Partition#K The private respondents

obected and filed a K&otion and Cpposition To +cco"nting#K 'ence, the co"rt

appointed a $ommissioner on +cco"nting# Thereafter, an +lias Writ of E!ec"tion

as implemented b% the Sheriff hich as ret"rned Kpartiall% satisfied#K Privaterespondents filed another motion for the iss"ance of a Second +lias Writ of

E!ec"tion, hich the co"rt a 6uogranted# Petitioner moved to set aside the secondalias rit of e!ec"tion# The trial co"rt denied the said motion and directed the

iss"ance of a third alias rit of e!ec"tion hich as ret"rned "nsatisfied# +gain,

the petitioner moved to -"ash the third alias rit of e!ec"tion ith a pra%er to sta%

the order den%ing the motion to set aside third alias rit of e!ec"tion on the

gro"nds that the rit of e!ec"tion varies the terms of the "dgment and that there

has been a change in the sit"ation of the parties hich renders the e!ec"tion

ine-"itable#

%ss&e$ Whether or not private respondents* act of forcibl% ta(ing possession ofthe land in -"estion is a fact or circ"mstance that has changed the sit"ation of the

parties thereb% ma(ing the e!ec"tion of the "dgment ine-"itable or "n"st#

R&ling$ While the r"le is that a sta% of e!ec"tion of a final "dgment ma% bea"thori9ed if necessar% to accomplish the ends of "stice, as for instance, here

there has been a change in the sit"ation of the parties hich ma(es s"ch e!ec"tion

ine-"itable, nevertheless the said r"le cannot be invo(ed hen the s"pposed

change in the circ"mstances of the parties too( place hile the case as pending,for the reason that there as then no e!c"se for not bringing to the attention of the

co"rt the fact or circ"mstance that affects the o"tcome of the case#

.n this case, the s"pposed change in the sit"ation of the parties too( place

hile $ivil $ase 6o# )118 :a complaint for recover% of inheritance, real propert%

ith damages< as still pending in the co"rt belo# Th"s, as claimed b% petitioner,

the private respondents too( possession of the propert% in -"estion on 5 &a%

81# The co"rt a 6uorendered its decision onl% on 30 7"ne 88# 'oever,petitioner did not bring "p the matter to the attention of the co"rt#

&oreover, Section ;, R"le 3 of the R"les of $o"rt provides, among

others, that KDnless otherise ordered b% the co"rt, a "dgment or order directing

an acco"nting in an action, shall not be sta%ed after its rendition and before an

appeal is ta(en or d"ring the pendenc% of an appeal#K .f a "dgment or order

directing an acco"nting is not sta%ed after its rendition and before an appeal is

ta(en or d"ring the pendenc% of the appeal, ith more reason the "dgment of theco"rt in the present case directing an acco"nting cannot be sta%ed since it has

alread% become final and e!ec"tor%#


EL%#T%C#* %NC. vs# ATE?A+ ELECTRN%C# CR"RAT%Nand !%R#T LE"ANT TA%# %N#URANCE* CR"RAT%N

!acts$ Petitioner Aeologistics, .nc#, formerl% (non as LEP .nternational


18/53

Philippines, .nc#,a freight forarding and c"stoms bro(erage, instit"ted an action

for the recover% of s"m of mone% against respondent Aatea% Electronic

$orporation :respondent Aatea%< before the RT$#RT$ r"led in favor of the

petitioner and s"bse-"entl% iss"ed a rit of preliminar% attachment on the

properties of respondent Aatea%# Petitioner filed a motion for e!ec"tion pendingappeal for the folloing Kgood reasonsK> :< respondent Aatea% as g"ilt% of

fra"d in contracting its obligations to petitioner@ :2< the appeal as interposed todela% the case@ :3< respondent Aatea% had ceased operations and as in

imminent danger of insolvenc%@ and :;< the co"nter)bond posted b% respondent

Aatea% co"ld be the s"bect of e!ec"tion#RT$ granted the motion and a rit of

e!ec"tion as implemented#

Respondents filed R"le 45 petitions before the $o"rt of +ppeals arg"ing

that no good reason e!isted to "stif% e!ec"tion pending appeal especiall%considering the fact that the case had alread% been elevated on appeal#$+ r"led in

favor of the respondents# 'ence, this present petition#

%ss&e$Whether a s"fficient gro"nd e!ists arranting the discretionar% e!ec"tionof the RT$ decision#

R&ling$The r"le on e!ec"tion pending appeal, hich is no termed discretionar%e!ec"tion "nder R"le 3, Section 2 of the R"les of $o"rt, m"st be strictl%constr"ed being an e!ception to the general r"le# ?iscretionar% e!ec"tion of

appealed "dgments ma% be alloed "pon conc"rrence of the folloing re-"isites>

:a< there m"st be a motion b% the prevailing part% ith notice to the adverse part%@

:b< there m"st be a good reason for e!ec"tion pending appeal@ and :c< the good

reason m"st be stated in a special order# The %ardstic( remains the presence or the

absence of good reasons consisting of e!ceptional circ"mstances of s"ch "rgenc%as to o"teigh the in"r% or damage that the losing part% ma% s"ffer, sho"ld the

appealed "dgment be reversed later# Since the e!ec"tion of a "dgment pendingappeal is an e!ception to the general r"le, the e!istence of good reasons is

essential#

The R"les of $o"rt does not state, en"merate, or give e!amples of Kgood

reasonsK to "stif% e!ec"tion# The determination of hat is a good reason m"st,necessaril%, be addressed to the so"nd discretion of the trial co"rt#

The gro"nds cited b% the RT$ in alloing the discretionar% e!ec"tion ofits decision cannot be considered Kgood reasons#K The alleged admission b%

respondent Aatea% of its liabilit% is more apparent than real beca"se the iss"e of

liabilit% is precisel% the reason the case as elevated on appeal# The e!act amo"nt

of respondent Aatea%/s liabilit% to petitioner remains "nder disp"te even if, as

claimed b% petitioner, the evidence on record indicates that respondent Aatea%/s

obligation is almost a certaint%# Precisel% the appeal process m"st be alloed to

ta(e its co"rse all the a% to the finalit% of "dgment to determine once and for all

the incidents of the s"it#

The fact alone that in the certiorari proceeding, the $o"rt of +ppeals alsofo"nd respondent Aatea% to have admitted its liabilit% for a different amo"nt is

not a"tomaticall% considered as a Kgood reasonK to order discretionar% e!ec"tion#


C%T+ ! BACLD vs. ENR%,UE'0 Phil# 4;;

!acts$ The $. of Cccidental 6egros favored private respondents herein in its"dgment in the case entitled K7es"s J"iatchon, 7ose T# Real, &an"el $abiles

+lfredo T# Schab vs# &an"el =illan"eva, in his capacit% as +cting &a%or of the

$it% of acolod,K hich as an action for mandam"s to compel the defendant toreinstate the plaintiffs as policeman of said cit% and to pa% them their salariesd"ring the period of their o"ster in addition to moral and e!emplar% damages "t

before the appeal as perfected, the co"rt, at the instance of the petitioners and

over the obection of the defendant, iss"ed an order for the immediate e!ec"tion

of the "dgment#

Reconsideration of the order having been denied, the $it% of acolod, in

con"nction ith the defendant, filed this present petition for certiorari to enointhe respondent 7"dge from compelling the petitioner &an"el =illan"eva to

reinstate the respondents policeman and to ann"l the said order of immediatee!ec"tion insofar as it o"ld a"thori9e a lev% on the properties of the cit% to

satisf% the "dgment for the pa%ment of the policemen*s salaries d"ring the period

of their o"ster# +nsering the petition, the respondents set "p the defense that the

iss"ance of the order complained of is a"thori9ed b% section 2 of R"le 3 and that,as provided in that same action, petitioner*s remed% is to file a bond to sta%

e!ec"tion#

%ss&e$Whether or not the order of the $. for the immediate e!ec"tion of its"dgment can be given d"e co"rse#


19/53

R&ling$6o# Section 2 of R"le 3 allos e!ec"tion to iss"e pending appeal# "ts"ch e!ec"tion can onl% be iss"ed against one ho is a part% to the action and not

against one ho, not being a part% in the case, has not %et had his da% in co"rt

:Ta%son and +ngeles vs# Qcasiano, et al# A#R# L)2283, &a% 3, ;@ &an9a vs#

Santiago, etc#, A#R# L)1830, +pril 30, 55l +ngara vs# Aorospe, et al#, A#R# L)230, +pril 22, 51

!acts$ Philippine To"rism +"thorit% :PT+< ons the =ictoria Tennis $o"rtslocated in .ntram"ros# .n a &emorand"m of +greement :&C+ :< there m"st be a "dgment or final order@ :2< the trial co"rt m"st

have lost "risdiction over the case@ :3< there m"st be Hgood reasonsI to allo

e!ec"tion@ and :;< s"ch good reasons m"st be stated in a special order after d"e

hearing# Dndo"btedl%, the RT$ order dated +"g"st 5, 1 hich granted private

respondents/ motion to dismiss and lifted the rit of preliminar% in"nction is aHfinal orderI ithin the contemplation of Section 2, R"le 3 of the Revised R"les

of $o"rt# Cn the matter of hearing, $+ did not gravel% ab"se its discretion ingranting the motion for e!ec"tion pending appeal itho"t a f"ll)blon or trial)

t%pe hearing# We have declared that d"e process basicall% entails the opport"nit%

to be heard, and e hold that the same principle "nderlies the provision on hearing

in Section 2 of R"le 3# The records of the instant case clearl% disclose thatpetitioners have filed their comment to private respondents/ motion for e!ec"tion

pending appeal, and their arg"ments as embodied in said comment did in factform part of the disc"ssion of respondent co"rt in its assailed resol"tion#

This $o"rt finds that the observation on the deteriorating and "nsanitar%

conditions of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts hich came from tennis pla%ers ho

reg"larl% "se the said co"rts is ell ithin the discretion of the co"rt, and there is


20/53

no indication it as fabricated simpl% to proc"re for PT+ the restoration of

possession of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts# &oreover, P'.LT+ no longer had an%

legal right to the possession and management of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts

beca"se the lease agreement beteen PT+ and P'.LT+ had alread% e!pired on

7"ne 5, 1# +lso, "dgments in actions for in"nction are not sta%ed b% thependenc% of an appeal# This r"le has been held to e!tend to "dgments decreeing

the dissol"tion of a rit of preliminar% in"nction, hich are immediatel%e!ec"tor%#


RAD% CUN%CAT%N# ! TE "%L%""%NE#* %NC. vs. LANT%NA#R# 6o# L)53, 7an"ar% 3, 85

!acts$ R"f"s # Rodrig"e9, as President of the World +ssociation of LaSt"dents :W+LS


21/53

Philippine Ports +"thorit% to e!propriation# $onflict arose hen there is a

disagreement beteen the appraised val"e per s-"are meter of the lots# +fter the

Trial $o"rt determined the val"e of the lots, one of the gro"ps of oners of the

lots have moved for the e!ec"tion of the "dgment# +gain after a series of cases,

petitioners moved for e!ec"tion pending appeal#

%ss&e$ Whether or not e!ec"tion pending appeal is applicable to e!propriationproceedings#

R&ling$6o, The $o"rt r"les that discretionar% e!ec"tion of "dgments pendingappeal "nder Sec# 2:a< of R"le 3 does not appl% to eminent domain proceedings#

+s earl% as in =isa%an Refining $o# v# $am"s and Paredes, 00the

$o"rt held>7hen the o#ernment is plaintiff the udgment will naturally

ta8e the form of an order merely re6uiring the payment of the award as

a condition precedent to the transfer of the title, as a personal

udgment against the o#ernment could not e reali.ed upon

e%ecution

.n $ommissioner of P"blic 'igha%s v# San ?iego,0no less than the eminent

$hief 7"stice $la"dio Teehan(ee e!plained the rationale behind the doctrine thatgovernment f"nds and properties cannot be sei9ed "nder a rit of e!ec"tion, th"s>

The uni#ersal rule that where the 'tate gi#es its consent to e sued y

pri#ate parties either y general or special law, it may limit claimants

action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage

of e%ecution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the udgment

is rendered, since go#ernment funds and properties may not e sei.ed

under writs of e%ecution or garnishment to satisfy such udgments, isased on o#ious considerations of pulic policy 0isursements of

pulic funds must e co#ered y the corresponding appropriation asre6uired y law The functions and pulic ser#ices rendered y the

'tate cannot e allowed to e paraly.ed or disrupted y the di#ersion

of pulic funds from their legitimate and specific oects, as

appropriated y lawPP+/s monies, facilities and assets are government properties# Ergo, the% are

e!empt from e!ec"tion hether b% virt"e of a final "dgment or pending appeal#


0" LATE TECNL+* %NC.*vs# BALLN# RANER BALLN#*%NC. et al.

!acts$ Respondent allons Aanger filed complaint for rescission and damages,

accompanied b% an application for the iss"ance of a rit of replevin, againstpetitioner 7P Late! Technolog%, .nc## Dpon the petitioner/s defa"lt to file an

anser, the RT$ rendered its decision in favor of respondent Aranger# While the

case as pending respondent Aranger moved for the e!ec"tion pending appeal of

the RT$ decision#

+fter it received a cop% of the RT$ decision, petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration#RT$ granted the plea for e!ec"tion Kpending appeal#K The RT$

reconsidered its earlier position and conse-"entl% granted the e!ec"tion Kpending

appealK after finding that the e-"ipment "nder litigation ere deteriorating and

that petitioner might not have s"fficient f"nds to pa% for the damages, thereb%

leaving respondents ith an empt% "dgment#

%ss&e$WC6 order of e!ec"tion pending appeal is proper despite the pending and"nresolved motion for reconsideration#

eld$6o# +side from being premat"re, there is no good reason to grant thee!ec"tion pending appeal#

E!ec"tion pending appeal or immediate e!ec"tion, hich is no called

discretionar% e!ec"tion "nder R"le 3, Section 2:a


22/53

move for an e!ec"tion pending appeal of the trial co"rt/s decision has not %et also

started#

Where there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the RT$ decision,

an order e!ec"tion pending appeal is improper and premat"re# The pendenc% of

the motion for reconsideration legall% precl"des e!ec"tion of the RT$ decisionbeca"se the motion serves as the movant/s vehicle to point o"t the findings and

concl"sions of the decision hich, in his vie, are not s"pported b% la or theevidence and, therefore, gives the trial "dge the occasion to reverse himself# .n

the event that the trial "dge finds the motion for reconsideration meritorio"s, he

can of co"rse reverse the decision#

.n an% event, the $o"rt does not find an% good reason to "stif% the

e!ec"tion of the RT$ decision pending finalit%# The RT$/s finding that the

machiner% "nder litigation as deteriorating is not s"pported b% the evidence onrecord# 6or is the possibilit% that petitioner o"ld not be able to pa% the "dgment

aard a good reason to order discretionar% e!ec"tion# The good reasons alloing

e!ec"tion pending appeal m"st constit"te s"perior circ"mstances demanding

"rgenc% that ill o"teigh the in"ries or damages to the adverse part% if the

decision is reversed#


ARC%NET %NTERNAT%NAL*%NC. and #E/?AN AN*vs BECC"%L%""%NE#* %NC. andBECCA "R"ERT+

AND DE-EL"ENT CR".*A#R# 6o# 83153 7"ne , 200

!acts$ Respondent eccoma! engaged the services of respondent eccoPhilippines, .nc# :ecco :a< there m"st be a motion b% the prevailing part% ith

notice to the adverse part%@ :b< there m"st be a good reason for e!ec"tion pendingappeal@ and :c< the good reason m"st be stated in a special order#

Aood reasons consist of compelling circ"mstances "stif%ing immediate

e!ec"tion lest "dgment becomes ill"sor%, or the prevailing part% after the lapse of

time be "nable to eno% it, considering the tactics of the adverse part% ho ma%

have apparentl% no ca"se b"t to dela%# S"ch reasons m"st constit"te s"perior

circ"mstances demanding "rgenc% hich ill o"teigh the in"r% or damages

sho"ld the losing part% sec"re a reversal of the "dgment# E!ec"tion of a"dgment pending appeal is an e!ception to the general r"le that onl% a final"dgment ma% be e!ec"ted# Th"s, the e!istence of Hgood reasonsI is essential for

it is hat confers discretionar% poer on a co"rt to iss"e a rit of e!ec"tion

pending appeal#

The records sho that petitioners s"bmitted doc"mentar% evidence in

s"pport of its pra%er for discretionar% e!ec"tion# Petitioners s"bmitted a arrant

of arrest against $han Shi( Uim, President of ecco and eccoma!, to prove thatthe latter has not ret"rned to the co"ntr%@ a ?irector/s $ertificate, shoing that

ecco/s oard of ?irectors a"thori9ed its dissol"tion@ and certified machinecopies from the Sec"rities and E!change $ommission of Reports of ecco and

eccoma! to demonstrate that the former is in a state of li-"idation hile the

latter is in imminent danger of insolvenc%#

.t bears stressing that imminent danger of insolvenc% of the defeatedpart% has been held to be a good reason to "stif% discretionar% e!ec"tion#


23/53


C"A%A ENERAL DE TABAC# DE !%L%"%NA# vs. ART%NE'*seriff of ccidental Negros* and R%CARD NLAN

ebr"ar% 2, 5, A#R# 6o# L)8;0

!acts$&arcelo $orte9a commenced an action in the $o"rt of irst .nstance ofCccidental 6egros against Tomas de Leon to recover the s"m of P2,15, andinterest# .n this action an attachment as levied in accordance ith the e!isting

proced"re "pon the 00 hectares of land no in -"estion, and then belonging to

?e Leon# The $o"rt of irst .nstance of Cccidental 6egros, "pon motion of the

interested part%, iss"ed a rit of e!ec"tion based "pon the "dgment of 885

against ?e Leon, and there "nder the sheriff levied "pon the land here in -"estion

and sold the same over the protest of the plaintiff compan%, at p"blic a"ction# +n

action to ann"l this e!ec"tion sale as commenced forthith b% the plaintiffcompan%# 7"dgment as entered den%ing the relief so"ght, b"t "pon appeal, thisco"rt reversed that "dgment and ann"lled the sale and all the proceedings ta(en

b% virt"e of that e!ec"tion, "pon the gro"nd that the old "dgment co"ld not be

enforced at that time in that manner

Thereafter, 7ose # &artine9, ho had ac-"ired for val"able consideration

that the "dgment of 88 against ?e Leon, commenced an action in the $o"rt of

irst .nstance "pon that "nsatisfied "dgment, pra%ing that the said "dgment berevived and that the attachment levied in the former action be e!ec"ted b% the sale

of the 00 hectares# ?efendant ?e Leon, having defa"lted in the defense of thisne action, a "dgment as entered against him for the s"m of P5,443#38, and the

costs of the ca"se# rom this "dgment no appeal as ta(en# &artine9, as

"dgment creditor of ?e Leon, again ca"sed a lev%, b% virt"e of an e!ec"tion

iss"ed "pon this "dgment, to be made "pon the 00 hectares and, in spite of theplaintiff*s reneed claims and protests, ca"sed the land th"s levied "pon to be sold

b% the sheriff to satisf% the "dgment of +"g"st , # The present action asthere"pon commenced to -"iet the plaintiff*s title b% ann"ling this second sale#

R&ling$The $o"rt of irst .nstance hich tried the action, see(ing to enforce the"dgment of 88, held that the "dgment or attachment lien against the land in

-"estion co"ld no longer be enforced# We are not advised of the reasons of the

co"rt for deciding# Whether it as beca"se the lien had been released, or the lapse

of so man% %ears, or d"e to the fact that the land as at the time held b% a remote

grantee of ?e Leon, e cannot sa%# 'oever this ma% be, the -"estion of a

creditor*s right to enforce the lien as, as ill be seen from the pra%er of thecomplaint and the dispositive part of the "dgment, s"pra, p"t directl% in iss"e and

specificall% and definitel% decided against him in the ne "dgment# The onl%effect of his ne "dgment as simpl% to create a personal liabilit% against ?e

Leon# .f this ere error, it as not "risdictional and cannot no be attac(ed# The

onl% remed% open to the creditor as b% an appeal# 6o appeal as ta(en,

conse-"entl%, hatever relief the "dgment# Dnder that "dgment the plaintiff

co"ld have attached and sold an% propert% then belonging to ?e Leon@ b"t the

land in -"estion no longer belonged to him# 'e had parted ith all his right, titleand interest therein# The land as no more s"sceptible to e!ec"tion "nder the ne

"dgment than an% other propert% belonging to the plaintiff compan%# 'ence, the

sale of that partic"lar parcel of land b% virt"e of an e!ec"tion iss"ed to enforce the

ne "dgment as "na"thori9ed b% that "dgment and as conse-"entl% void#


!LREND vs. RAN0 Phil# ;83

!acts$ The controvers% is an appeal from the $o"rt of irst .nstance KabsolvingKthe plaintiff from a co"nterclaim# or fail"re of the plaintiff to prosec"te, the main

action hich as for divorce, had been dismissed# Plaintiff and the defendant areman and ife ho have been living apart since 0# .n an action for maintenance

and s"pport bro"ght in civil case no# 2853, the $o"rt held that it as for the

balance of the proceeds of that "dgment and the instalments hich fell d"e

thereafter that the co"nterclaim as interposed# .t as alleged that the said"dgment had been onl% partiall% e!ec"ted on +"g"st 8, l3, leaving P100

"nsatisfied, and that none of the s"bse-"ent instalments had paid been paid# Thetotal amo"nt demanded as P3,4;0, embracing all the "npaid alloances don to

the date of the filling of the co"nterclaim, hich as Cctober , ;3# The trial

co"rt held that the co"nterclaim as res udicata and that the defendant*s remed%

did not lie in this Ke!pedienteK# "t the co"rt as "ne!plicit as to here and the


24/53

defendant sho"ld go for relief, or hether, in its opinion, the plaintiff had been

discharged from all liabilit% "nder the "ne!ec"ted "dgment b% prescription or

laches, as the plaintiff contended#

%ss&e$What is the appropriate proced"re to enforce the "dgment in an action formaintenance and s"pport

R&ling$The $o"rt r"led that a simple motion for e!ec"tion o"ld be the properstep to sec"re the pa%ment of s"pport and maintenance in arrears# + motion of the

character mentioned o"ld afford the "dgment creditor a speed% and ade-"ate

remed%, and has the advantage of being less c"mbersome and complicated than a

co"nterclaim#

&oreover, the $o"rt reiterated in vario"s cases that a "dgment fors"pport does not prescribe or become dormant# +lso instalments not recovered

ithin ten %ears from the time the% became d"e, prescribe# e it noted that

instalments into hich an alimon% is derived ma% lapse b% prescription b"t that

the "dgment itself does not# The "dgment remains in effect indefinitel% b"t

"npaid instalments that are more than ten %ears old are "ncollectible# This

sit"ation is made possible b% the fact that instalment do not fall d"e at the same

time, ith the res"lt that hile some instalment ma% prescribe, there ala%sremain others hich do not# +s instalments become pa%able one at a time, the%prescribe in the same progression, s"ccessivel% as the% are alloed to reach the

ten)%ear limitation period itho"t an% action being ta(en to collect them#

The instalments incl"ded in the "dgment rendered b% the $o"rt in an

appeal before the $+ of the action filed date as far bac( as ebr"ar% , 32, so

that some of them ere alread% of more than ten %ears standing hen the

dismissed co"nterclaim as doc(eted in l;3# 'oever, the period of limitationith reference to those instalments as interr"pted b% the instit"tion of the action

for maintenance and s"pport, and that interr"ption did not cease "ntil the renditionof the S"preme $o"rt*s decision in &arch, 35# % reason of the interr"ption the

f"ll period of interr"ption commenced to r"n ane "pon the cessation of the

s"spension@ and comp"ted from that date, the ten)%ear limitation had not r"n o"t

hen the co"nterclaim as set "p in l;3# KWhen prescription is interr"pted b% a"dicial demand, the f"ll time for the prescription m"st be rec(oned from the

cessation of the interr"ption#K


CRE#ENC%AN TRRE!RANCA* ET AL.vs# !%LEN ALB%#

!acts$ .n a case of forcible entr% and detainer, the co"rt r"led in favor ofplaintiffs)appellants Torrefranca ordering herein defendant)appelle +lbiso to

restore possession of a piece of land and pa% damages to the plaintiffs# The"dgment having remained "nsatisfied for more than five %ears, the plaintiffs,

bro"ght the present action to have it revived in the same "stice of the peace co"rt#

+ rit of e!ec"tion as then as(ed b% the plaintiffs# With that motion still

pending determination, the defendant on his part filed a motion for the dismissal

of the case, contending that the $o"rt of irst .nstance, as an appellate co"rt, had

no "risdiction to tr% it beca"se, according to him, the "stice of the peace co"rtitself did not have "risdiction to entertain an action for the revival of a "dgment#

The $. then dismissed the case beca"se of laches on the part of the plaintiffs for

their fail"re to sec"re a rit of e!ec"tion ithin five %ears# 'ence, this present

appeal#

%ss&e$Whether the action to revive the forcible entr% and detainer case for its

e!ec"tion as rightf"ll% dismissed b% the $. on the gro"nd of laches#

R&ling$6o# R"le 3, and Section 4 of that r"le provides>SE$# 4#4%ecution y motion or y independent action# B

+ "dgment ma% be e!ec"ted on motion ithin five %ears

from the date of its entr%# +fter the lapse of s"ch time, and

before it is barred b% the stat"te of limitations, a "dgment

ma% be enforced b% action#This provision, and for that matter the hole of R"le 3, is applicable in

inferior co"rts as R"le ;, hich governs the proced"re in those co"rts, e!pressl%declares in its section # We see nothing in section 4 of R"le 3 that is

inconsistent ith R"le ;#

The a"thorit% of a "stice of the peace of co"rt to revive its on "dgment being

clear, it as error to dismiss plaintiff*s action on the theor% that s"ch a"thorit% didnot e!ist#

'olding the plaintiffs g"ilt% of laches for failing to sec"re a rit ofe!ec"tion ithin five %ears from the entr% of "dgment, the loer co"rt o"ld

also, on that gro"nd, deprive them of their right to have the "dgment revived# To

that e cannot agree# .t is clear that section 4 of R"le 3 gives the plaintiffs not

onl% the right to enforce the "dgment thro"gh the mere motion for e!ec"tion


25/53

ithin five %ears, b"t also, after the e!piration of that period itho"t the "dgment

having been satisfied, the right to bring an action for its enforcement ithin the

time prescribed b% the stat"te of limitations# We o"ld be constr"ing the section

arbitraril% ere e to hold that the right to bring that action is forfeited if the right

to move for e!ec"tion has not been e!ercised#


0UC vs. E%R# ! TA# #%+ CUN !UA#R# 6o# 50233, ebr"ar% 4, 2005

!acts$ The predecessors)in)interest of herein respondents filed an action forrecover% of propert% ith damages before the then $. of $amarines S"r against

Esperan9a P# &artine9, mother of herein petitioner# The co"rt decided in favor of

plaintiffs prompting &artine9 to file a &otion for Reconsideration ith motion forcontempt assailing the denial of the record on appeal# 'oever, said motion asleft "nresolved as the records of the case ere b"rned in a fire that ra9ed the

Provincial $apitol of $amarines S"r#

or repeated fail"re to appear before the co"rt of respondent, 7"co, the

sole s"rviving heir of the deceased defendant &artine9, filed a motion to dismiss

the reconstit"tion case, hich as granted b% the loer co"rt# ?espite the finalit%

of the dismissal of the reconstit"tion case, respondent filed a complaint for revivalof "dgment in $ivil $ase 6o# 128# .n said petition, the% claimed that the

decision as act"all% reconstit"ted in the dismissed petition for reconstit"tion andthat the same had become final and e!ec"tor% b"t as denied# The $+ on appeal

held that the records and the decision in that $ivil $ase ere not reconstit"ted b"t

made a parallel finding that, notithstanding the fail"re of reconstit"tion, there

sho"ld be a determination of hether or not the s"bect decision had become final,th"s remanding the case to the loer co"rt hich rendered a decision in favor of

respondents, ordering the revival of said "dgment# Petitioner appealed b"t asdenied r"ling that she as g"ilt% of laches and her fail"re to ta(e action implies

lac( of interest to enforce her right over the case#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the decision in $ivil $ase 6o#128 can be the proper

s"bect of an action for revival of "dgment#

R&ling$6o# .t is an "ndisp"ted fact that hen the records of the original caseere destro%ed in the fire there as a pending motion for reconsideration of the

disapproval of the record on appeal filed b% petitioner# + motion forreconsideration has the effect of s"spending the stat"tor% period after hich an

order, decision, or "dgment, in connection ith hich said motion as filed,becomes final# .n effect, s"ch motion for reconsideration has prevented the

decision from attaining finalit%#

The doctrine of laches cannot operate to lend finalit% to the decision

since petitioner/s fail"re to p"rs"e the motion for reconsideration as not d"e to

her negligence or abandonment, b"t as rather bro"ght "pon b% the dismissal of

the reconstit"tion case thereb% preventing the decision in $ivil $ase 6o# 128 toattain finalit% and become e!ec"tor% b% reason of laches#


ADELA%DA %N!ANTEvers"s ARAN BU%LDER#* %NC

!acts$ efore the RT$ of &"ntinl"pa $it% an action for revival of "dgment asfiled b% +ran "ilders, .nc against +delaida .nfante# The "dgment so"ght to be

revived as rendered b% RT$ of &a(ati $it% in an action for specific performance

and damages# .nfante filed a motion to dismiss the action for revival of "dgment

on the gro"nds that the &"ntinl"pa RT$ has no "risdiction over the persons ofthe parties and that ven"e as improperl% laid# This motion as opposed b%

+ran "ilders, .nc# RT$ of &"ntinl"pa dismissed the motion of .nfante# .t statedthat at the time the decision as rendered b% RT$ of &a(ati there as still no

RT$s in &"ntinl"pa b"t ith creation of RT$s in &"ntinl"pa matters involving

properties located in this $it%, and cases involving its residents are all ordered to

be litigated before these $o"rts# This "dgment so"ght to be revived involves theinterest, possession, title, and onership of the parcel of land located in

&"ntinl"pa cit% and ad"dged to Plaintiff#.nfante/s motion for reconsideration as denied hence, she filed before

the $+ an instant special civil action for certiorari#$+ prom"lgated its decision in

favor of +ran "ilder/s .nc# it held that since the "dgment so"ght to be revived

affects title to or possession of real propert%, or interest therein, it sho"ld be filed


26/53

ith the RT$ of the place here the real propert% is located# 'ence, .nfant filed

this petition#

%ss&e$ Where is the proper ven"e of the present action for revival of "dgment

R&ling$ Section 4, R"le 3 of the 1 R"les of $ivil Proced"re provides that

after the lapse of five :5< %ears from entr% of "dgment and before it is barred b%the stat"te of limitations, a final and e!ec"tor% "dgment or order ma% be enforced

b% action# The R"le does not specif% in hich co"rt the action for revival of

"dgment sho"ld be filed# Th"s, the proper ven"e depends on the determination of

hether the present action for revival of "dgment is a real action or a personal

action#

The allegations in the complaint for revival of "dgment determinehether it is a real action or a personal action from the previo"s "dgment it is

"ndeniable that private respondent has an established interest over the lot in

-"estion@ and to protect s"ch right or interest, private respondent bro"ght s"it to

revive the previo"s "dgment# The sole reason for the present action to revive is

the enforcement of private respondent*s ad"dged rights over a piece of realt%#

=eril%, the action falls "nder the categor% of a real action, for it affects private

respondent*s interest over real propert%# The present case for revival of "dgmentbeing a real action, the complaint sho"ld indeed be filed ith the Regional Trial$o"rt of the place here the realt% is located#


"EA* 0R. vs. REALAD %%* #ER%!! %-* RTC of NAA+# 6o# P)0)2112, ebr"ar% 4, 200

!acts$ Respondent Sheriff .= +chilles Regalado .. in implementing the rit of

e!ec"tion iss"ed in relation to People v# ?omingo PeOa, 7r# and ?omingorancisco :a $riminal $ase


27/53

!acts$ Petitioner is the ins"rer of Private Respondent 6elia Enri-"e9, hoseprivate eep collided ith the PD7 of respondent Primitava Palmes ca"sing the

death of her h"sband# Primitiva filed a complaint against 6elia for moral, act"al

and e!emplar% damages# The trial co"rt r"led in favo"r of Primitiva# The"dgment then became final and e!ec"tor, hoever the rit of e!ec"tion as

ret"rned "nsatisfied# 6elia as then s"mmoned for e!amination, here shedeclared that that the PD7 as covered b% Petitioner#

Private respondent then moved for garnishment against Perla in favo"r of the

"dgment debtor# Petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming the co"rt had the

co"rt had ac-"ired no "risdiction over them, hich as s"bse-"entl% denied#

To %ears after :the S"preme $o"rt remar(ed this sho"ld have been dismissed the"dgment debtor, ho is the original creditor of the garnishee is, thro"gh service

of the rit of garnishment, s"bstit"ted b% the "dgment creditor ho thereb%

becomes creditor of the garnishee# Aarnishment has also been described as a

arning to a person having in his possession propert% or credits of the "dgment

debtor, not to pa% the mone% or deliver the propert% to the latter, b"t rather to

appear and anser the plaintiff*s s"it#.n order that the trial co"rt ma% validl% ac-"ire "risdiction to bind the

person of the garnishee, it is not necessar% that s"mmons be served "pon him# Thegarnishee need not be impleaded as a part% to the case# +ll that is necessar% for the

trial co"rt laf"ll% to bind the person of the garnishee or an% person ho has in

his possession credits belonging to the "dgment debtor is service "pon him of the

rit of garnishment#Thro"gh service of the rit of garnishment, the garnishee becomes a

Kvirt"al part%K to, or a Kforced intervenorK in, the case and the trial co"rt thereb%ac-"ires "risdiction to bind him to compliance ith all orders and processes of

the trial co"rt ith a vie to the complete satisfaction of the "dgment of the

co"rt# .n a"tista v# arredo, 4 the $o"rt, thro"gh &r# 7"stice a"tista +ngelo,

held>

7hile it is true that defendant 9ose +arredo was not a

party in Ci#il Case :o 1;; when it was instituted y appellant

against the 3hilippine Ready i% Concrete Company, /nc, howe#er,

urisdiction was ac6uired o#er him y the court and he ecame a

#irtual party to the case when, after final udgment was rendered insaid case against the company, the sheriff ser#ed upon him a writ of

garnishment in ehalf of appellant +y means of the citation, thestranger ecomes a forced inter#enor$ and the court, ha#ing ac6uired

urisdiction o#er him y means of the citation, re6uires him to pay his

det, not to his former creditor, ut to the new creditor, who is creditor

in the main litigation


#"U#E# E%L% AB%NU0AR and %LAR# . LANA* vs. TECURT ! A""EAL# and #"U#E# #ANT%A RA%R and

!LRENT%NA RA%R* res4ondents.

!acts$ Private respondents filed a complaint for eectment in the &T$ againstpetitioners# 'oever, the parties, assisted b% their co"nsels, e!ec"ted a

compromise agreement hich the &T$ approved# The order reprod"ced the

agreement that fail"re on the part of the defendants to pa% three :3< consec"tive

pa%ments, plaintiffs ill be entitled to a rit of e!ec"tion, "nless the parties agree

to e!tend the period of entitlement to a rit of e!ec"tion in riting to bes"bmitted andGor approved b% this 'onorable $o"rt#

Private respondents filed a motion for e!ec"tion on the gro"nd thatpetitioners failed to pa% the first three installments stip"lated in the compromise

agreement# Thereafter, a KSheriffs* 6otice to =ol"ntaril% =acate the PremisesK as

served on petitioner, hich the latter assailed the validit% of the iss"ance

ratiocinating that their obligation is monetar% in nat"re and the applicable r"lesho"ld have been Section , R"le 3 and not Section 0, R"le 3 of the Revised

R"les of $o"rt#

%ss&e$WC6 the applicable r"le is Section or Section 0

eld$The applicable r"le is Section #


28/53

When the parties entered into a compromise agreement, the original

action for eectment as set aside and the action as changed to a monetar%

obligation#

+ per"sal of the compromise agreement signed b% the parties and

approved b% the inferior co"rt merel% provided that in case the defendants:petitioners herein< failed to pa% three monthl% installments, the plaintiffs :private

respondents herein< o"ld be entitled to a rit of e!ec"tion, itho"t specif%inghat the s"bect of e!ec"tion o"ld be# Said agreement did not state that

petitioners o"ld be evicted from the premises s"bect of the s"it in case of an%

defa"lt in compl%ing ith their obligation there"nder# This as the res"lt of the

careless drafting thereof for hich onl% private respondents ere to be blamed#

+s petitioners* obligation "nder the compromise agreement as approved

b% the co"rt as monetar% in nat"re, private respondents can avail onl% of the ritof e!ec"tion provided in Section , R"le 3 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt, and not

that provided in Section 0#

Section , R"le 3 provides that the officer m"st enforce an e!ec"tion of

a mone% "dgment b% lev%ing on all the propert%, real and personal of ever% name

and nat"re hatsoever, and hich ma% be disposed of for val"e, of the "dgment

debtor not e!empt from e!ec"tion, or on a s"fficient amo"nt of s"ch propert%, if

there be s"fficient, and selling the same, and pa%ing to the "dgment creditor, orhis attorne%, so m"ch of the proceeds as ill satisf% the "dgment#

Cn the other hand, Section 3, R"le 3 provides that the officer m"st

enforce an e!ec"tion for the deliver% or restit"tion of propert% b% o"sting

therefrom the person against hom the "dgment is rendered and placing the

"dgment creditor in possession of s"ch propert%, and b% lev%ing as hereinafter

provided "pon so m"ch of the propert% of the "dgment debtor as ill satisf% the

amo"nt of the "dgment and costs incl"ded in the rit of e!ec"tion#


"ENTAN #ECUR%T+ and %N-E#T%AT%N AENC+vs. -%CENTE T.0%ENE'* ET AL

A#R# 6o# 88; > ?ecember 20, 0

!acts$Petitioner, a single proprietorship engaged in sec"rit% services, as orderedto pa% the amo"nt of P51,#0; representing ages and $CL+ differentials d"e

its emplo%ees, as comp"ted in a decision of the 6LR$# + notice of garnishment

as iss"ed against petitioner, addressed to the P$)SDS.+ cGo $ol# 6orberto

Lina, $amp $rame, E?S+, J#$# ?ep"t% Sheriff Silvino # Santos ho iss"ed a

6otice of Lev% and Sale on E!ec"tion of Personal Properties :firearms "sed b% the

emplo%ees if petitioner< against herein petitioner, hich personal properties arethe licensed firearms in -"estion#

Petitioner filed an "rgent petition to -"ash 6otice of Lev% and Sale onE!ec"tion, claiming e!emption from e!ec"tion "nder Sec# 2, par# :b


29/53

AL!RED C%N and ENCARNAC%N C%Nvs. TE N. CURT! A""EAL# and ALL%ED BAN/%N CR"RAT%N.

A#R# 6o# 2;4;2# ebr"ar% 23, 200;

!acts$ The dep"t% sheriff of the trial co"rt levied on attachment the 00,000common shares of $it%corp stoc(s in the name of +lfredo $hing# Emilio Q#

TaOedo, thereafter, filed his on Cmnib"s &otion pra%ing for the dismissal of the

complaint, arg"ing that the +$ had Habandoned and aivedI its right to proceed

against the contin"ing g"arant% b% its act of resorting to preliminar% attachment#

+cting on the aforementioned motion, the trial co"rt iss"ed on ?ecember 5, 3

an Crder lifting the rit of preliminar% attachment on the shares of stoc(s and

ordering the sheriff to ret"rn the said stoc(s to the petitioners#

%ss&e$ Whether the petitioner)ife has the right to file the motion to -"ash thelev% on attachment on the 00,000 shares of stoc(s in the $it%corp .nvestment

Philippines@

R&ling$ We agree ith the petitioners that the petitioner)ife had the right to filethe said motion, altho"gh she as not a part% in $ivil $ase 6o# ;212# .n !ng #

Tating, e held that the sheriff ma% attach onl% those properties of the defendantagainst hom a rit of attachment has been iss"ed b% the co"rt# When the sherifferroneo"sl% levies on attachment and sei9es the propert% of a third person in

hich the said defendant holds no right or interest, the s"perior a"thorit% of the

co"rt hich has a"thori9ed the e!ec"tion ma% be invo(ed b% the aggrieved third

person in the same case# Dpon application of the third person, the co"rt shall

order a s"mmar% hearing for the p"rpose of determining hether the sheriff has

acted rightl% or rongl% in the performance of his d"ties in the e!ec"tion of therit of attachment, more specificall% if he has indeed levied on attachment and

ta(en hold of propert% not belonging to the plaintiff# .f so, the co"rt ma% thenorder the sheriff to release the propert% from the erroneo"s lev% and to ret"rn the

same to the third person# .n resolving the motion of the third part%, the co"rt does

not and cannot pass "pon the -"estion of the title to the propert% ith an%

character of finalit%# .t can treat the matter onl% insofar as ma% be necessar% todecide if the sheriff has acted correctl% or not# .f the claimant/s proof does not

pers"ade the co"rt of the validit% of the title, or right of possession thereto, theclaim ill be denied b% the co"rt# The aggrieved third part% ma% also avail

himself of the remed% of HterceriaI b% e!ec"ting an affidavit of his title or right of

possession over the propert% levied on attachment and serving the same to the

office ma(ing the lev% and the adverse part%# S"ch part% ma% also file an action

to n"llif% the lev% ith damages res"lting from the "nlaf"l lev% and sei9"re,

hich sho"ld be a totall% separate and distinct action from the former case# The

above)mentioned remedies are c"m"lative and an% one of them ma% be resorted to

b% one third)part% claimant itho"t availing of the other remedies#

.n this case, the petitioner)ife filed her motion to set aside the lev% onattachment of the 00,000 shares of stoc(s in the name of petitioner)h"sband

claiming that the said shares of stoc(s ere con"gal in nat"re@ hence, not liable

for the acco"nt of her h"sband "nder his contin"ing g"arant% and s"ret%ship

agreement ith the P&$.# The petitioner)ife had the right to file the motion

for said relief#


CA"A vs. CURT ! A""EAL#September , 2004

!acts$ + complaint for damages and attorne%/s fees as filed b% petitionersagainst private respondent and $aptain and &rs# Qhapon before the RT$ henpetitioners/ motor banca san( in the aters of ?"mag"ete $it% hen it collided

ith the motori9ed vessel of private respondent, manned b% $aptain Qhapon# The

core of the controvers% of this case as hen a &otion to ?en% Third)Part%

$laim ith &otion to +dmit $laim for ?amages as filed b% petitioners before

the $+ pra%ing that the third)part% claim be denied for being invalid since it as

not signed b% Raca b"t b% her alleged attorne%)in)fact# Raca, after a rit ofe!ec"tion pending appeal as iss"ed to lev% on private respondent Dnited

=ismin/s properties, she filed a third)part% claim alleging onership over the tovessels hich ere levied# Cn the other hand, petitioners filed a &otion to ?en%

Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit $laim for ?amages pra%ing that the

third)part% claim be denied for being invalid as it as not signed b% Raco b"t b%

her alleged attorne%)in)fact and that their claim for damages arising from themalicio"s filing of the third)part% claim be admitted b% the $+ in the same

appealed case#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ committed grave ab"se of discretion hen it didnot act on petitioners* &otion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit

$laim for ?amages on the gro"nd that the same sho"ld have been filed ith the


30/53

RT$#

R&ling$ The petition lac(s merit#The $+ did not commit grave ab"se of discretion in not acting on

petitioner/s motion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit claim for?amages since the invalidit% of the affidavit of third)part% claim sho"ld have been

raised at the earliest opport"nit% hich is in the trial co"rt#

.n this case, hile the records of the case ere still ith the trial co"rt,

petitioners co"ld have then moved for the -"ashal of the same# Th"s, the% co"ld

no longer invo(e the "risdiction of the $+ to r"le on the same hen the% in fact

had alread% aived the alleged defect in the affidavit hen the% so"ght from the

$+ the approval of the indemnit% bond the% posted in the trial co"rt# +lso, the $+

cannot be compelled to act on petitioners* &otion to +dmit $laim for damages asit had no "risdiction to do so# +s provided in Section 4, R"le 3 of the R"les of

$o"rt, a third part% claimant or an% third person ma% vindicate his claim to his

propert% rongf"ll% levied b% filing a proper action hich is distinct and separate

from that in hich the "dgment is being enforced# S"ch action o"ld have for its

obect the recover% of the possession of the propert% sei9ed b% the sheriff, as ell

as damages res"lting from the allegedl% rongf"l sei9"re and detention thereof

despite the third)part% claim@ and it ma% be bro"ght against the sheriff, of co"rse,and s"ch other parties as ma% be alleged to have coll"ded ith the sheriff in thes"pposedl% rongf"l e!ec"tion proceedings, s"ch as the "dgment creditor

himself##

S"ch o"ld also be a remed% to a "dgment obligee hen a frivolo"s and

plainl% sp"rio"s claim as filed b% a third)part% claimant, ie#, to file his claim for

damages in the same co"rt here the third)part% claimant filed his third)part%

claim or to file a separate action#

Th"s, petitioners* claim for damages m"st be filed in the trial co"rt,

hether in the same case here a third)part% claim has been filed or in a separate

action for damages hich petitioners ma% instit"te#


RA# vs. "ABL

!acts$Plaintiffs bo"ght a parcel of land from Socorro +# Ramos# Dn(non to the

plaintiff, hen the foregoing deed of sale as e!ec"ted, it had alread% an e!isting

mortgage in favor of Rodrigo Enri-"e9 and that the latter had alread% filed an

action for foreclos"re# Said propert% as foreclosed and later sold to &aria

=illadolid# +fter the death of Socorro, the plaintiffs filed an action against

Socorro/s estate# P"rs"ant to said decision, the E!)Cfficio Sheriff of J"e9on $it%levied "pon and sold at e!ec"tion 8 parcels of land hich ere sold at a l"mp

s"m bid price to the Spo"ses Pablo, one of the defendants ho ere iss"ed a ne

cert of title#

S"ch facts having been bro"ght to the (noledge of the heirs of the

deceased Socorro +# Ramos, the% filed an action in the $. to declare as n"ll and

void the Transfer $ertificate of Title iss"ed in the name of spo"ses Pablo, alleging

among other things that the aforementioned transactions or events ere in gross

violation of plaintiffs* rights as the l"mp s"m sale of the 8 parcels of land ascontrar% to the provision of Sec# 2, R"le 3 of the R"les of $o"rt hich re-"ires

the separate bidding and individ"al sale of real estate properties levied "pon on

e!ec"tion and of Sec# 21, R"le 3 hich re-"ires the statement of the price paid

for each distinct lot or parcel#

%ss&e$hether the trial co"rt erred in holding that plaintiffs* Kremed% is no

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	venessa-salazar-barbiran
View:	264 times
Download:	1 times

Digested Cases - CivPro

Documents