Open innovation: Chesbrough CasesDescrição completa
CIVPRO CASESFull description
ciac
Transpo CasesFull description
Cases in Sales under Atty Paolo Dimayuga
about the taxationFull description
Full description
bk
Full description
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in MGT 428 - Production and Operations ManagementFull description
Digest
Accounting Cases
Digest of Mining Cases.
Full description
G.R. No. 127913
September 13, 2001
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORA CORPORAION, ION, petitioner, vs.
>n its Decision, promulgated on 18 October 1996, the $ourt of Appeals granted the petition and set aside the 1+ arch 1996 and +* !une 1996 orders of the R$. he appellate court also ordered the dismissal of $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9 *798%%9*. *. R$4$
MERO CONAINER CORPORAION, respondent. ence, the present recourse.
KAP!NAN, J.: R$4$ alleged, that Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision, promulgated on 18 October 1996 and the Resolution, promulgated promulgated on 8 !anuar" 199#, of the $ourt of Appeals in $A%&.R. '( )o. *1+9*. he facts of the case are as followsOn +6 'eptember 199, e" $onstruction $orporation /0$O)2 contracted a loan from Ri3al $ommercial 4an5ing $orporation /R$4$2 in the amount of hirt" illion (esos /(7,,.2. /(7,,.2. he loan was secured b" a real estate mortgage over a propert", located in 4arrio gong, alen3uela, etro anila /now alen3uela $it"2 and covered b" $ )o. %1#++7. 0$O) failed to settle its obligations prompting R$4$ to institute an e:tra;udicial foreclosure proceedings against it. After 0$O)nterpleader >nterpleader,, doc5eted as $ivil $ase )o. *798%% 9* before the Regional rial $ourt of alen3uela, etro anila? 4ranch #@ against 0$O) and R$4$ to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves themselves and to determine which among them shall rightfull" receive the pa"ment of monthl" rentals on the sub;ect propert" .On * !ul" 199@, during the pre%trial conference in $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case insofar as 0RO$A) and 0$O) were concerned in view of an amicable settlement the" entered entered b" virtue of which 0RO$A) paid bac5 rentals to 0$O). On 71 October 199@, ;udgment was rendered in $ivil $ase )o.6++, which among other things, ordered 0RO$A) to pa" 0$O) whatever rentals due on the sub;ect premises. he e$ decision became final and e:ecutor". On 1 =ebruar" 1996, 0RO$A) moved for the dismissal of $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9* for having become moot and academic due to the amicable settlement it entered with 0$O) on * !ul" 199@ and the decision in $ivil $ase )o. 6++ on 71 October 199@. 0$O), li5ewise, moved for the dismissal of the case citing the same grounds cited b" 0RO$A). On 1+ arch 1996, the two motions were dismissed for lac5 of merit. he motions for r econsideration filed b" 0RO$A) and 0$O) were also denied prompting 0RO$A) to see5 relief f rom the $ourt of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and prohibition with pra"er for the issuance of a temporar" restraining order and a writ of preliminar" in;unction. 0$O), as private respondent, respondent, also sought for the nullification of the R$ orders.
/12 0 D0$>'>O) O= 0 0RO(O>A) R>A $OR >) 0 0!0$0) $A'0 40B00) 0RO$A) A)D 0$O) DO0' )O A)D $A))O R0)D0R 0 >)0R(0AD0R A$>O) OO A)D A$AD0>$. /+2 B>0 A (AR BO >)>>A0' A) >)0R(0AD0R A$>O) A )O 40 $O(00D O >>&A0 >>&A0 >= 0 >' )O O)&0R >)0R0'0D O (R'0 '$ $A'0 O= A$>O), 'A>D (AR A )O )>A0RA $A'0 0 D>'>''A O= 0 $A'0 A=0R 0 A)'B0R A 0 400) =>0D. =R0R, 0 D0=0)DA)' >) A) >)0R(0AD0R >)0R(0AD0R '> 'OD 40 &>0) = O((OR)> O >>&A0 >>&A0 0>R R0'(0$>0 $A>'.1 Be sustain the $ourt of Appeals. 'ection 1, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of $ourt + provides'ection 1. - Interpleader when proper. % Bhenever conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against a person, who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the claimants, he ma" bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. >n the case before us, it is undisputed that 0RO$A) filed the interpleader action /$ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*2 *798%% 9*2 because it was unsure which between 0$O) and R$4$ was entitled to receive the pa"ment of monthl" rentals on the sub;ect propert". 0$O) was claiming pa"ment of the rentals as lessor of the propert" while R$4$ was ma5ing a demand b" virtue of the consolidation of the title of the propert" in its name. >t is also undisputed that 0$O), as lessor of the sub;ect propert" filed an action for unlawful detainer /$ivil $ase )o. 6++2 against its lessee 0RO$A). he issue in $ivil $ase )o. 6++ is limited to the Cuestion of ph"sical or material possession of the premises. 7 he issue of ownership is immaterial therein * and the outcome of the case could not in an" wa" affect conflicting claims of ownership, in this case between R$4$ and 0$O). his was made clear when the trial court, in den"ing R$4$nclusion : : : as an >ndispensable (art" declared that the final determination determinatio n of the issue of ph"sical possession over the sub;ect premises between the plaintiff and the defendant shall not in an" wa" affect R$4$
reason to continue with $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*. *798%%9*. hus, 0RO$A) moved for the dismissal of the interpleader action not because it is no longer interested but because there is no more need for it to pursue such cause of action. >t should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person not against double liabilit" but against double ve:ation in respect of one liabilit". # >t reCuires, as an indespensable reCuisite, that conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against the plaintiff%in%interpleader plaintiff%in%inter pleader who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the claimants. 8 he decision in $ivil $ase )o. 6++ resolved the conflicting claims insofar as pa"ment of rentals was concerned. (etitioner is correct in sa"ing that it is not bound b" the decision in $ivil $ase )o. 6++. >t is not a part" thereto. owever, it could not compel 0RO$A) to pursue $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*. R$4$ has other avenues to prove its claim. >s not bereft of other legal remedies. >n fact, he issue of ownership can ver" well be threshed out in $ivil $ase )o. *7#%%97, *7#%%97, the case for )ullification of 0:tra;udicial foreclosure 'ale and Damages filed b" 0$O) against R$4$. 1âwphi1.nêt
G.R. No. L&'1(1( $ebr)*r+ 1(, 197 ZOILA CO LIM, petitioner, vs.
BENIO GER-ASIO AN */ ZOILA CO LIM, respondents. Jose F. Aguirre Aguirre for Zoil a Co Li. Isael !. Aleda for Continental "evelopent Corporation. Joa#uin $. Chung% Jr. for &enito $ervasio !an.
"#ERE$ORE, the petition for review is D0)>0D and the Decision of the $ourt of Appeals, promulgated on 18 October 1996, as well as its Resolution promulgated on 8 !anuar" 199#, are A$$IRME%.
SO OR%ERE% .
MAKASIAR, J . . hese two petitions see5 a review of the order dated arch 1+, 19#* of the !udge presiding 4ranch EE> of the anila $ourt of =irst >nstance, dismissing petitioner $ontinental $ontinental Development $orporation
reason to continue with $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*. *798%%9*. hus, 0RO$A) moved for the dismissal of the interpleader action not because it is no longer interested but because there is no more need for it to pursue such cause of action. >t should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person not against double liabilit" but against double ve:ation in respect of one liabilit". # >t reCuires, as an indespensable reCuisite, that conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against the plaintiff%in%interpleader plaintiff%in%inter pleader who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the claimants. 8 he decision in $ivil $ase )o. 6++ resolved the conflicting claims insofar as pa"ment of rentals was concerned. (etitioner is correct in sa"ing that it is not bound b" the decision in $ivil $ase )o. 6++. >t is not a part" thereto. owever, it could not compel 0RO$A) to pursue $ivil $ase )o. *798%%9*. R$4$ has other avenues to prove its claim. >s not bereft of other legal remedies. >n fact, he issue of ownership can ver" well be threshed out in $ivil $ase )o. *7#%%97, *7#%%97, the case for )ullification of 0:tra;udicial foreclosure 'ale and Damages filed b" 0$O) against R$4$. 1âwphi1.nêt
G.R. No. L&'1(1( $ebr)*r+ 1(, 197 ZOILA CO LIM, petitioner, vs.
BENIO GER-ASIO AN */ ZOILA CO LIM, respondents. Jose F. Aguirre Aguirre for Zoil a Co Li. Isael !. Aleda for Continental "evelopent Corporation. Joa#uin $. Chung% Jr. for &enito $ervasio !an.
"#ERE$ORE, the petition for review is D0)>0D and the Decision of the $ourt of Appeals, promulgated on 18 October 1996, as well as its Resolution promulgated on 8 !anuar" 199#, are A$$IRME%.
SO OR%ERE% .
MAKASIAR, J . . hese two petitions see5 a review of the order dated arch 1+, 19#* of the !udge presiding 4ranch EE> of the anila $ourt of =irst >nstance, dismissing petitioner $ontinental $ontinental Development $orporation
On !anuar" #, 19#*, herein respondent 4enito &ervasio an, as defendant in the lower court, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground, inter alia, that paragraph + of the complaint itself states that the shares of stoc5 in Cuestion are recorded in the boo5s of petitioner in the same of defendant 4enito &ervasio an, who should therefore be declared owner thereof pursuant to 'ection @+ of the $orporation aw /pp. +@%7, rec.2. On !anuar" 1*, 19#*, defendant Foila $o im filed her answer e:pressl" admitting paragraph + of the complaint, but alleging that the said shares of stoc5 had previousl" been delivered in trust to the defendant 4enito &ervasio an for her /Foilan the Cuestioned order dated arch 1+, 19#*, the trial ;udge dismissed the complaint for lac5 of cause of action, invo5ing 'ection 7@ of Act )o. 1*@9, as amended, otherwise otherwise 5nown as the $orporation aw /pp. *1*+, &.R. )o. %*18712. Defendant Foila $o im and herein petitioner as plaintiff, filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the aforesaid order /pp. *7%*9, &.R. )o. %*18712, to which the defendant 4enito &ervasio an an filed his re;oinder /pp. @%61, &.R. )o. %*18712. 'aid motions were denied in an order dated !ul" 7, 19#*. ence these petitions b" $ontinental Development Development $orporation and Foila $o im. >t is patent from the pleadings in the lower court that both defendants 4enito &ervasio an and Foila $o im assert conflicting rights to the Cuestioned shares of stoc5. (recisel" in his motion to dismiss the complaint for interpleader, defendant 4enito &ervasio an states that petitioner corporation, through its ice%(resident,, notified him on !ul" +7, 19#7 that the shares of stoc5 are in the possession of its ice%(resident treasurer, r. " im, and urged defendant to directl" obtain them from the former, who allegedl" was on vacation at the time. r. " im, on August 7, 19#7, through counsel, replied to the defendant 4enito &ervasio an that said certificates were not in his possession but surmised, without reference to an" record, that the same might have been delivered to the deceased 'o 4i. And, on October +9, 19#7, same counsel of r. " im, wrote the corporation, in behalf of defendant Foila $o im, alleged heir of 'o 4i, claiming ownership of the stoc5s /pp. +6, +#, &.R. )o. %*18712. Defendant Foila $o im, on the other hand. as heretofore stated, claims sole%ownership of said shares of stoc5 as inheritance from her late mother 'o 4i, alias awa. And petitioner petitioner $ontinental Development $orporation $orporation e:pressl" e:pressl" stated in the the complaint that both defendants,, through their respective law"ers, threatened to ta5e punitive measures against it should it defendants adopt an" steps that ma" pre;udice then respective interests in the shares of stoc5 in Cuestion? and that it is not sufficientl" informed of the rights of the respective claimants and therefore not in a position to determine ;ustl" and correctl" their conflicting claims /pars. @, 6 and # of the complaint, p. +7, rec.2 And in its opposition opposition to the motion to dismiss dismiss its complaint, complaint, petitioner petitioner $ontinental Development Development $orporation s that it might be l iable to one defendant should it compl" with the demands of the other with respect to the transfer or entr" of the shares of stoc5 in the boo5s of the corporation. 'ince there is an active conflict of interests between the two defendants, now herein respondent 4enito &ervasio an an and petitioner Foila $o im, over the disputed shares of stoc5, the trial court gravel" abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for interpleader, which practicall" decided ownership of the shares of stoc5 in favor of defendant 4enito &ervasio an. he two defendants, now respondents in &.R. )o. %*1871, should be given full opportunit" to litigate their respective claims. Rule 67, 'ection 1 of the )ew Rules of $ourt tells us when a cause of action e:ists to support a complaint in interpleaderBhenever conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against a person, who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the complainants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves />talics supplied2.
his provision onl" reCuires as an indispensable reCuisitereCuisitethat conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against the plaintiff%in%interpleader plaintiff%in%interpleader who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the claimants /4eltran vs. (eoplendeed, petitioner corporation corporation is placed in the same situation as a lessee who does not 5now the person to whom he will pa" the rentals due to the conflicting claims over the propert" leased, or a sheriff who finds himself pu33led b" conflicting claims to a propert" sei3ed b" him. >n these e:amples, the lessee /(ang5alinawan vs. Rodas, 8 (hil. +82 and the sheriff '"%Guia vs. 'heriff, *6 (hil. *2 were each allowed to file a complaint in interpleader to determine the respective rights of the claimants. B0R0=OR0, 0 (0>>O)' AR0 0R04 &RA)0D? 0 ORD0R DA0D AR$ 1+, 19#* D>'>''>)& 0 $O(A>) A)D 0 ORD0R DA0D ! 7, 19#* D0)>)& 0 O>O) =OR R0$O)'>D0RA>O) R0$O)'>D0RA>O) O= 0 (0>>O)0R' >) 0'0 BO $A'0' AR0 0R04 '0 A'>D0. B> $O'' $O'' A&A>)' A&A>)' R0'(O)D0) R0'(O)D0) 40)>O &0RA &0RA'>O '>O A). A).
G.R. No. L&22(07
Otober 10, 192' G.R. No. L&1(0
$ebr)*r+ 24, 19'(
GREGORIO R. S&!IA, petitioner, vs.
#E S#ERI$$ O$ ILOCOS S!R */ $ILA%EL$O %E LEON, respondents. Antonio '. Jiene( for petitioner. F. )illanueva% )illanueva% for respon dents.
AL$ONSO PAGKALINA"AN */ MAN!EL PAGKALINA"AN, petitioners, vs.
SOERO RO%AS, 5)/6e o $8rt It*e o M*8:*, 5OA!IN GARCIA, S;er8 o M*8:*, */ MAN!EL AMB!NING, respondents. +. L. 'eer for petitioners. ,arte and $arcia for respondents.
PARAS, J. OSRAN%, J.: his is a petition for a writ of andaus to compel the 'heriff of the (rovince of >locos 'ur to proceed with a chattel mortgage foreclosure sale. >t appears from the record that on =ebruar" 7, 191@, iguel Aglipa" $heng%aco $heng%aco and =eliciano Re"es $heng%Hiangco $heng%Hiangc o e:ecuted a chattel mortgage in favor of the petitioner, ®orio R. '"%Guia on their mercantile, establishment, establishment, with all the merchandise therein contained, as securit" for a debt of (6,. he chattel mortgage was dul" recorded on the date of i ts e:ecution and fell due on =ebruar" 7, 191#. =rom its terms it ma" be inferred that it was the intention of the parties that the mortgagors were to be permitted to sell the merchandise replenishing their stoc5 from time to time and that the new stoc5 brought in should also be sub;ect to the mortgage. On a" @, 19+*, iguel Aglipa" $heng%aco e:ecuted another chattel mortgage on the same establishmentt and all i ts contents in favor of the respondent =iladelfo de eon as securit" for the sum establishmen of (*,9, which mortgage was recorded on a" *, 19+*. On the latter date of the petitioner, in writing, reCuested the sheriff to ta5e possession of the mortgaged propert" and to sell it at public auction under the provisions of section 1* of the $hattel ortgage aw /Act )o. 1@82. he sheriff sei3ed the establishment in Cuestion as well as its contents and fi:ed the date of the sale at !une +, 19+*. >n the meantime =iladelfo de eon presented an adverse claim to the propert" b" virtue of his chattel mortgage, alleging that all the goods on which the chattel mortgage of ®orio R. '"%Guia was given had been sold long before the chattel mortgage in favor of De eon was e:ecuted and that, therefore, the earlier chattel mortgage was of no effect. he sheriff being in doubt as to the priorit" of the conflicting claims, suspended the foreclosure proceedings and brought an action under section 1+ of the $ode of $ivil (rocedure reCuiring the two claimants to interplead. hereupon, the present proceeding that the dut" of the sheriff to proceed with the sale was a ministerial one and pra"ing that the sheriff be commanded to proceed. 1awph*l.net hough it, perhaps, would have been better practice for the sheriff to sell the propert" and hold the proceeds of the sale sub;ect to the outcome of the action of interpleader, we, nevertheless, nevertheless, are of the opinion that the facts shown do not ;ustif" our interference b" mandamus. he sheriff might la" himself open to an action for damages if he sold the goods without the consent of the holder of the last mortgage, and it does not appear that the petitioner offered to give bond to hold him harmless in such an event. >n these circumstances, his action in suspending the sale pending the determination of the action of interpleader seems ;ustified. Be ma" sa" further that in cases such as the present, the petition for mandamus should be addressed to the $ourts of =irst >nstance rather than to this court. he petition is denied with the costs against the petitioner. 'o ordered.
>n an e;ectment suit between anuel ambunting, plaintiff, and Alfonso (ag5alinawan and anuel (ag5alinawan,, defendants, appealed from the municipal court to the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila, (ag5alinawan the latter court, after trial, rendered a decision dated !ul" 7, 19*#, sentencing the defendants to vacate the house in Cuestion and to pa" the plaintiff the rentals from )ovember, 19*6, at the rate of (*@ a month, plus the costs. Acting upon a motion for reconsideration, filed b" the defendants, the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila issued an order dated !ul" +6, 19*#, granting said motion, setting aside the decision of !ul" 7, 19*#, and absolving the defendants from the complaint. On motion for reconsideration in turn filed b" the plaintiff, an order dated August 16, 19*#, was issued in which the same court dicta de nuevo sentencia en esta causa, ordenando al 0scribano pague al aCui domandante los alCuileres depositados por los demandados paguen al demandante directamenta los alCuileres, en caso contrario, el !u3gado ordenara su lan3amiento de la finca en cuestion " les condenara al pago de las costas. his decision appears to have become final, as a result of which, upon petition of the plaintiff, the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila ordered the issuance of a writ of e:ecution. he defendants sought to sta" the e:ecution on the ground that the" had in the meantime filed with the same court an interpleader suit against the plaintiff and one Angel de eon Ong, pra"ing that the latter two be ordered to litigate their conflicting claims to the rentals due from the defendants for the premises in Cuestion, it appearing that said defendants received a notice from the Attorne" of Angel de eon eon Ong advising advising the defendants defendants to stop stop pa"ing rentals rentals to the plaintiff. plaintiff. he $ourt $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila acceded to the motion for sta" of e:ecution, but, at the instance of the plaintiff, it issued an order on )ovember 1, 19*#, directing that e:ecution be proceeded with. =ailing to obtain a reconsideration of the latter order, the defendant defendants s instituted the present petition for certiorari and and prohibition, see5ing from us an order directing on. 'otero Rodas, !udge of the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila, and !oaCuin &arcia, sheriff, to desist from carr"ing out the writ of e:ecution. here is merit in the petition. >t is true that the decision of the respondent ;udge of August 16, 19*#, orders the petitioners to pa" the rentals directl" to the respondent anuel ambunting ambunting and provides for their e;ectment in case of default. 4ut it appears that, in connection with the interpleader suit filed b" the herein petitioners in the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila, said rentals were deposited with the cler5 of court, of which fact the respondent ;udge was informed b" the petitioners in their constancia dated October 1@, 19*#. 'uch deposits, in our opinion, constitute a ona fide compliance with the decision of the respondent ;udge, since it is undeniable that the petitioners were warned b" Angel de eon Ong not to pa" rentals to the respondent anuel ambunting. hat there is reall" a conflicting claim between Angel de eon Ong and respondent anuel ambunting is evidenced b" the fact that there are pending in the $ourt of =irst >nstance of anila civil case )o. 81@, between anuel ambunting, plaintiff, and Angel de eon Ong and Ong oa, defendants, for the annulment of a contract of sale involving the premises in Cuestion, and civil case )o. +69, between Angel Angel de eon Ong, plaintiff, and anuel ambunting, defendant, for the e;ectment of ambunting from the propert" located at )os. 7+9 to 779 andua" 'treet, anila, which includes the premises held b" the petitioners. nder the law, the latter have a right to file the interpleader suit in view of the claim for r entals of Angel de eon Ong? and if the respondent ambunting ambunting believes that he is legall" entitled to said r entals, he is free to move for withdrawal of the deposits made b" the petitioners. Bherefore, the petition is hereb" granted and the respondent ;udge and sheriff are ordered to desist form carr"ing out the writ of e:ecution issued in civil case )o. 1*89. 'o ordered, with costs against the respondent anuel ambunting.
On 18 August 19#9, a5ati 4el%Air filed its answer and incorporated therein a counter%claim against petitioner 4an5 and a cross%claim against Altiura. >n turn, Altiura filed an answer to the complaint%in% interpleader, with motion to dismiss the crossclaim of a5ati 4el%Air.
eantime, on +7 !ul" 19#9, Altiura had filed a complaint for rescission of the contract of sale of the condominium unit, with damages, against a5ati 4el%Air doc5eted as $ivil $ase )o. 7796#, which case was eventuall" consolidated with the interpleader case.
ncanto% 'augat / Associates for petitioner. 'ena 0. !aganas for private respondent.
RESOL!ION
$ELICIANO, J.: (etitioner see5s review of the decision of the respondent appellate court dated +# !une 198@ which annulled and set aside certain orders of the then $ourt of =irst >nstance /$=>2 of Ri3al, 4ranch 1@, a5ati so far as said orders dismissed private respondents< counter%claim. On +7 !ul" 19#9, petitioner nited $oconut (lanters 4an5 /4an52 filed in the lower court a complaint% in%interpleader against private respondent a5ati 4el%Air $ondominium Developers, >nc. /a5ati 4el% Air2 and against Altiura >nvestors, >nc. /Altiura2. he sub;ect matter of the complaint was a manager
On +9 August 19#9, petitioner 4an5 filed a motion to withdraw complaint and motion to dismiss counter%claim, stating that there was no longer an" conflict between a5ati 4el%Air and Altiura as to who was entitled to the funds covered b" the managern the same order, the trial court granted a5ati 4el%Air
he ne:t da", 18 !ul" 19#@, petitioner 4an5 received a repl" from a5ati 4el%Air e:plaining the latter
>n its decision dated +# !une 198@, the appellate court granted certiorari and nullified the trial courtn the instant (etition for Review on Certiorari , petitioner 4an5 argues that a5ati 4el%Airnterpleader is a proper remed" where a ban5 which had issued a manager
chec5 is sub;ected to opposing claims b" persons who respectivel" claim a right to the funds covered b" the manager
G.R. No. 1(1723
A)6)t 11, 201'
ELIZABE# %EL CARMEN, (etitioner, >n the instant case, petitioner 4an5 having been informed b" both Altiura and a5ati 4el%Air of their respective positions in their controvers", and a5ati 4el%Air having refused the 4an5t will be seen that a5ati 4el%Air)&, the $ourt Resolved to &RA) the (etition for Review and to R00R'0 and '0 A'>D0 the Decision of respondent appellate court dated +# !une 198@ in A$%&.R. '( )os. 1669%#.
PERALA, J.: his treats of the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 and Resolution + of the $ourt of Appeals /$A2, dated a" +@, +# and !anuar" +*, +8, respectivel", in $A%&.R. $ )o. #@17. he factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows'ometime in 1961, the spouses oribio and 0ufrocina 'uico /'uico spouses2, along with several business partners, entered into a business venture b" establishing a rice and com mill at andaue $it", $ebu. As part of their capital, the" obtained a loan from the Development 4an5 of the (hilippines /D4(2, and to secure the said loan, four parcels of land owned b" the 'uico spouses, denominated as ots @6, @1+, @17 and @1*, and another lot owned b" their business partner, !uliana Del Rosario, were mortgaged. 'ubseCuentl", the 'uico spouses and their business partners failed to pa" their loan obligations forcing D4( to foreclose the mortgage. After the 'uico spouses and their partners failed to redeem the foreclosed properties, D4( consolidated its ownership over the same. )onetheless, D4( later allowed the 'uico spouses and Reginald and 4eatri3 =lores /=lores spouses2, as substitutes for !uliana Del Rosario, to repurchase the sub;ect lots b" wa" of a conditional sale for the sum of (+*,@#1.. he 'uico and =lores spouses were able to pa" the downpa"ment and the first monthl" amorti3ation, but no monthl" installments were made thereafter. hreatened with the cancellation of the conditional sale, the 'uico and =lores spouses sold their rights over the said properties to herein respondents Restituto and ima 'abordo, sub;ect to the condition that the latter shall pa" the balance of the sale price. On 'eptember 7, 19#*, respondents and the 'uico and =lores spouses e:ecuted a supplemental agreement whereb" the" affirmed that what was actuall" sold to respondents were ots @1+ and @17, while ots @6 and @1* were given to them as usufructuaries. D4( approved the sale of rights of the 'uico and =lores spouses in favor of herein respondents. 'ubseCuentl", respondents were able to repurchase the foreclosed properties of the 'uico and =lores spouses. On 'eptember 17, 19#6, respondent Restituto 'abordo /Restituto2 filed with the then $ourt of =irst >nstance of )egros Occidental an original action for declarator" relief with damages and pra"er for a writ of preliminar" in;unction raising the issue of whether or not the 'uico spouses have the r ight to recover from respondents ots @6 and @1*. >n its Decision dated December 1#, 1986, the Regional rial $ourt /R$2 of 'an $arlos $it", )egros Occidental, ruled in favor of the 'uico spouses directing that the latter have until August 71, 198# within which to redeem or bu" bac5 from respondents ots @6 and @1*. On appeal, the $A, in its Decision7 in $A%&.R. $ )o. 17#8@, dated April +*, 199, modified the R$ decision b" giving the 'uico spouses until October 71, 199 within which to e:ercise their option to purchase or redeem the sub;ect lots from respondents b" pa"ing the sum of (1+#,@.. he dispositive portion of the $ADecision reads as follows:::: =or reasons given, ;udgment is hereb" rendered modif"ing the dispositive portion of ItheJ decision of the lower court to read-
12 he defendants%appellees are granted up to October 71, 199 within which toe:ercise their option to purchase from the plaintiff%appellant Restituto 'abordo and ima ahilum ot )o. @6, covered b" ransfer $ertificate of itle )o. %1+@98 and ot )o. @1*, covered b" ransfer $ertificate of itle )o. %1+@99, both of 0scalante $adastre, )egros Occidental b" reimbursing or pa"ing to the plaintiff the sum of O)0 )DR0D B0)%'00) O'A)D =>0 )DR0D (0'O' / (1+#,@.2? +2 Bithin said period, the defendants%appellees shall continue to have usufructuar" rights on the coconut trees on ots )os. @6 and @1*, 0scalante $adastre, )egros Occidental? 72 he Brit of (reliminar" >n;unction dated August 1+, 19## shall be effective untildefendants%appellees shall have e:ercised their option to purchase within said period b" pa"ing or reimbursing to the plaintiff%appellant the aforesaid amount. )o pronouncement as to costs. 'O ORD0R0D.* >n a Resolution @ dated =ebruar" 17, 1991, the $A granted the 'uico spouses an additional period of 9 da"s from notice within which to e:ercise their option to purchase or redeem the disputed lots. >n the meantime, oribio 'uico /oribio2 died leaving his widow, 0ufrocina, and several others, includingherein petitioner, as legal heirs. ater, the" discovered that respondents mortgaged ots @6 and @1* with Republic (lanters 4an5 /R(42 as securit" for a loan which, subseCuentl", became delinCuent. hereafter, claiming that the"are read" with the pa"ment of (1+#,@., but alleging that the" cannot determine as to whom such pa"ment shall be made, petitioner and her co%heirs filed a $omplain t6 with the R$ of 'an $arlos $it", )egros Occidental see5ing to compel herein respondents and R(4 to interplead and litigate between themselves their respective interests on the abovementioned sum of mone".1âwphi1 he $omplaint also pra"ed that respondents be directed to substitute ots @6 and @1* with other real estate properties as collateral for their outstanding obligation with R(4 and that the latter be ordered toaccept the substitute collateral and release the mortgage on ots @6 and @1*. pon filing of their complaint, the heirs of oribio deposited the amount of (1+#,@. with the R$ of 'an $arlos $it", 4ranch @9. Respondents filed their Answer # with $ounterclaim pra"ing for the dismissal of the above $omplaint on the grounds that /12 the action for interpleader was improper since R(4 isnot la"ing an" claim on the sum of (1+#,@.? /+2 that the period withinwhich the complainants are allowed to purchase ots @6 and @1* had alread" e:pired? /72 that there was no valid consignation, and /*2 that the case is barred b" litis pendenciaor res ;udicata.
(etitioner and her co%heirs filed a otion for Reconsideration,9 but it was li5ewise denied b" the $A. ence, the present petition for review on certiorariwith a lone Assignment of 0rror, to wit0 $OR O= A((0A' 0RR0D >) A==>R>)& 0 D0$>'>O) O= 0 OB0R $OR B>$ 0D A 0 !D>$>A D0(O'> O= (1+#,@. AD0 4 0 '>$O' B> 0 $0RH O= $OR O= 0 R$, 'A) $ARO' $>, >) $O(>A)$0 B> 0 =>)A A)D 0E0$OR D0$>'>O) O= 0 $OR O= A((0A' >) $A%&.R. $%17#8@ BA' )O A>D. 1 (etitionert should be distinguished from tender of pa"ment which is the manifestation b" the debtor to the creditor of his desire to compl" with his obligation, with the offer of immediate performance.ender is the antecedent of consignation, thatis, an act preparator" to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate conseCuences which the debtor desires or see5s to obtain. ender of pa"ment ma" be e:tra;udicial, while consignation is necessaril" ;udicial, and the priorit" of the first is the attempt to ma5e a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. ender and consignation, where validl" made, produces the effect of pa"ment and e:tinguishes the obligation. 17 >n the case of Ar3aga v. Rumbaoa, 1* which was cited b" petitioner in support of his contention, this $ourt ruled that the deposit made with the court b" the plaintiff%appellee in the saidcase is considered a valid pa"ment of the amount ad;udged, even without a prior tender of pa"ment thereof to the defendants%appellants,because the plaintiff%appellee, upon ma5ing such deposit, e:pressl" petitioned the court that the defendants%appellees be notified to receive the tender of pa"ment.his $ourt held that while ItJhe deposit, b" itself alone, ma" not have been sufficient, but with the e:press terms of the petition, there was full and complete offer of pa"ment made directl" to defendants%appellants. 1@ >n the instant case, however, petitioner and her co%heirs, upon ma5ing the deposit with the R$, did not as5 the trial court that respondents be notified to receive the amount that the" have deposited. >n fact, there was no tender of pa"ment. >nstead, what petitioner and her co%heirs pra"ed for is thatrespondents and R(4 be directed to interplead with one another to determine their alleged respective rights over the consigned amount? that respondents be li5ewise directed to substitute the sub;ect lots with other real properties as collateral for their loan with R(4 and that R(4 be also directed to accept the substitute real properties as collateral for the said loan. )onetheless,the trial court correctl" ruled that interpleader is not the proper remed" because R(4 did notma5e an" claim whatsoever over the amount consigned b" petitioner and her co%heirs with the court.
On December @, +1, the R$ rendered ;udgment, dismissing the $omplaint of petitioner and her co% heirs for lac5 of merit. 8 Respondents< $ounterclaim was li5ewise dismissed.
>n the cases of Del Rosario v. 'andico 16 and 'alvante v. $ru3, 1# li5ewise cited as authorit" b" petitioner, this $ourt held that, for a consignation or deposit with the court of an amount due on a ;udgment to be considered as pa"ment, there must beprior tender to the ;udgment creditor who refuses to accept it. he same principle was reiterated in the later case of (abugais v. 'ahi;wani .18 As stated above, tender of pa"ment involves a positive and unconditional act b" the obligor of offering legal tender currenc" as pa"ment to the obligee for the formerLs obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same. 19 >n the instant case, the $ourt finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the $A and the R$ that petitioner and her co%heirs failed to ma5e a prior valid tender of pa"ment to respondents.
(etitioner and her co%heirs filed an appeal with the $A contending that the ;udicial deposit or consignation of the amount of (1+#,@. was valid and binding and produced the effect of pa"ment of the purchase price of the sub;ect lots.
>t is settled that compliance with the reCuisites of a valid consignation is mandator".+ =ailure to compl" strictl" with an" of the reCuisites will render the consignation void. One of these reCuisites is a valid prior tender of pa"ment.+1
>n its assailed Decision, the $A denied the above appeal for lac5 of merit and affirmed the disputed R$ Decision.
nder Article 1+@6, the onl" instances where prior tender of pa"ment is e:cused are- /12 when the creditor is absent or un5nown, or does not appear at the place of pa"ment? /+2 when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the pa"ment at the time it is due? /72 when, without ;ust cause, the creditor
On the other hand, R(4 filed a otion to Dismiss the sub;ect $omplaint on the ground that petitioner and her co%heirs had no valid cause of action and that the" have no primar" legal right which is enforceable and binding against R(4.
refuses to give a receipt? /*2 when two or more persons claim the same right to collect? and /@2 when the title of the obligation has been lost. )one of these instances are present in the instant case. ence, the fact that the sub;ect lots are in danger of being foreclosed does not e:cuse petitioner and her co% heirs from tendering pa"ment to respondents, as directed b" the court.
G.R. No. 13'09
M*r; 1', 200(
S!B#AS# C. PASRIC#A */ 5OSEP#INE A. PASRIC#A, (etitioners, B0R0=OR0, the instant petition is D0)>0D. he Decision of the $ourt of Appeals, dated a" +@, +#, and its Resolution dated !anuar" +*, +8, both in $A%&.R. $ )o. #@17, are A==>R0D.
vs.
%ON L!IS %ISON REAL, INC., Respondent. D0$>'>O)
'O ORD0R0D.
NAC#!RA, J.: his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule *@ of the Rules of $ourt see5ing the reversal of the Decision1 of the $ourt of Appeals /$A2 dated a" +6, 1998 and its Resolution + dated December 1, 1998 in $A%&.R. '( )o. 7##79 dismissing the petition filed b" petitioners !osephine and 'ubhash (asricha. he facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as followsRespondent Don uis Dison Realt", >nc. and petitioners e:ecuted two $ontracts of ease 7 whereb" the former, as lessor, agreed to lease to the latter nits ++, +*, 7+, 77, 7*, 7@, 76, 7# and 78 of the 'an uis 4uilding, located at 16 .. Orosa cor. .. Halaw 'treets, 0rmita, anila. (etitioners, in turn, agreed to pa" monthl" rentals, as follows=or Rooms 7+M7@=rom arch 1, 1991 to August 71, 1991 N ( @,.M(1,. =rom 'eptember 1, 1991 to =ebruar" +9, 199+ N (@,@.M(11,. =rom arch 1, 199+ to =ebruar" +8, 1997 N (6,@.M(1+,1. =rom arch 1, 1997 to =ebruar" +8, 199* N (6,6@@.M(17,71. =rom arch 1, 199* to =ebruar" +8, 199@ N (#,7+.@M(1*,6*1. =rom arch 1, 199@ to =ebruar" +8, 1996 N (8,@+.@@M(16,1@.1 =rom arch 1, 1996 to =ebruar" +9, 199# N (8,8@#.81M(1#,#[email protected] =rom arch 1, 199# to =ebruar" +8, 1998 N (9,#*7.@9M(19,*8#.1# =rom arch 1, 1998 to =ebruar" +8, 1999 N (1,#1#.9@M(+1,*[email protected] =rom arch 1, 1999 to =ebruar" +8, + N (11,#89.#@M(+7,@#9.*8 * =or Rooms ++ and +*0ffective !ul" 1, 199+ N (1,. with an increment of 1 ever" two "ears. @ =or Rooms 77 and 7*-
0ffective April 1, 199+ N (@,. with an increment of 1 ever" two "ears .6
/72 to pa" an additional sum eCuivalent to +@ of the rent accounts as and for attorne"Ls fees plus the costs of this suit.
=or Rooms 76, 7# and 78'O ORD0R0D.+ 0ffective when tenants vacate said premises N (1,. with an increment of 1 ever" two "ears .
#
(etitioners were, li5ewise, reCuired to pa" for the cost of electric consumption, water bills and the use of telephone cables. 8 he lease of Rooms 76, 7# and 78 did not materiali3e leaving onl" Rooms ++, +*, 7+, 77, 7* and 7@ as sub;ects of the lease contracts.9 Bhile the contracts were in effect, petitioners dealt with =rancis (acheco /(acheco2, then &eneral anager of private respondent. hereafter, (acheco was replaced b" Roswinda 4autista /s. 4autista2.1(etitioners religiousl" paid the monthl" rentals until a" 199+.11 After that, however, despite repeated demands, petitioners continuousl" refused to pa" the stipulated rent. $onseCuentl", respondent was constrained to refer the matter to its law"er who, in turn, made a final demand on petitioners for the pa"ment of the accrued rentals amounting to (916,@8@.@8. 1+ 4ecause petitioners still refused to compl", a complaint for e;ectment was filed b" private respondent through its representative, s. 4autista, before the etropolitan rial $ourt /e$2 of anila. 17he case was raffled to 4ranch E>E and was doc5eted as $ivil $ase )o. 1*7@8%$. (etitioners admitted their failure to pa" the stipulated rent for the leased premises starting !ul" until )ovember 199+, but claimed that such refusal was ;ustified because of the internal sCuabble in respondent compan" as to the person authori3ed to receive pa"ment .1* o further ;ustif" their non% pa"ment of rent, petitioners alleged that the" were prevented from using the units /rooms2 sub;ect matter of the lease contract, e:cept Room 7@. (etitioners eventuall" paid their monthl" rent for December 199+ in the amount of ( 7,., and claimed that respondent waived its right to collect the rents for the months of !ul" to )ovember 199+ since petitioners were prevented from using Rooms ++, +*, 7+, 77, and 7*.1@ owever, the" again withheld pa"ment of rents starting !anuar" 1997 because of respondentLs refusal to turn over Rooms 76, 7# and 78 .16 o show good faith and willingness to pa" the rents, petitioners alleged that the" prepared the chec5 vouchers for their monthl" rentals from !anuar" 1997 to !anuar" 199*. 1# (etitioners further averred in their Amended Answer 18 that the complaint for e;ectment was prematurel" filed, as the controvers" was not referred to the baranga" for conciliation.
he court adopted the e$Ls finding on petitionersL un;ustified refusal to pa" the rent, which is a valid ground for e;ectment. >t, however, faulted the e$ in dismissing the case on the ground of lac5 of capacit" to sue. >nstead, it upheld s. 4autistaLs authorit" to represent respondent notwithstanding the absence of a board resolution to that effect, since her authorit" was implied from her power as a general managerMtreasurer of the compan".+1 Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the $ourt of Appeals in a petition for review on certiorari.++ On arch 18, 1998, petitioners filed an Omnibus otion +7 to cite s. 4autista for contempt? to stri5e down the e$ and R$ Decisions as legal nullities? and to conduct hearings and ocular inspections or delegate the reception of evidence. Bithout resolving the aforesaid motion, on a" +6, 1998, the $A affirmed +* the R$ Decision but deleted the award of attorne"Ls fees.+@ (etitioners moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. +6 hereafter, the" filed several motions as5ing the onorable !ustice Ruben . Re"es to inhibit from further proceeding with the case allegedl" because of his close association with s. 4autistaLs uncle%in%law.+# >n a Resolution +8 dated December 1, 1998, the $A denied the motions for lac5 of merit. he appellate court considered said motions as repetitive of their previous arguments, irrelevant and obviousl" dilator".+9 As to the motion for inhibition of the onorable !ustice Re"es, the same was denied, as the appellate court ;ustice stressed that the decision and the resolution were not affected b" e:traneous matters.7 astl", the appellate court granted respondentLs motion for e:ecution and directed the R$ to issue a new writ of e:ecution of its decision, with the e:ception of the award of attorne"Ls fees which the $A deleted.71 (etitioners now come before this $ourt in this petition for review on certiorari raising the following issues>.
=or failure of the parties to reach an amicable settlement, the pre%trial conference was terminated. hereafter, the" submitted their respective position papers. On )ovember +*, 199*, the e$ rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for e;ectment. 19 >t considered petitionersL non%pa"ment of rentals as un;ustified. he court held that mere willingness to pa" the rent did not amount to pa"ment of the obligation? petitioners should have deposited their pa"ment in the name of respondent compan". On the matter of possession of the sub;ect premises, the court did not give credence to petitionersL claim that private respondent failed to turn over possession of the premises. he court, however, dismissed the complaint because of s. 4autistaLs alleged lac5 of authorit" to sue on behalf of the corporation. Deciding the case on appeal, the Regional rial $ourt /R$2 of anila, 4ranch 1, in $ivil $ase )o. 9*% #+@1@, reversed and set aside the e$ Decision in this wiseB0R0=OR0, the appealed decision is hereb" reversed and set aside and another one is rendered ordering defendants%appellees and all persons claiming rights under them, as follows/12 to vacate the leased premised /sic2 and restore possession thereof to plaintiff%appellant? /+2 to pa" plaintiff%appellant the sum of (96#,[email protected] representing the accrued rents in arrears as of )ovember 1997, and the rents on the leased premises for the succeeding months in the amounts stated in paragraph @ of the complaint until full" paid? and
Bhether this e;ectment suit should be dismissed and whether petitioners are entitled to damages for the unauthori3ed and malicious filing b" Rosario /sic2 4autista of this e;ectment case, it being clear that IRoswindaJ N whether as general manager or b" virtue of her subseCuent designation b" the 4oard of Directors as the corporationLs attorne"%in%fact N had no legal capacit" to institute the e;ectment suit, independentl" of whether Director (acanaLs Order setting aside the '0$ revocation Order is a mere scrap of paper. >>. Bhether the R$Ls and the onorable $ourt of AppealsL failure and refusal to resolve the most fundamental factual issues in the instant e;ectment case render said decisions void on their face b" reason of the complete abdication b" the R$ and the onorable !ustice Ruben Re"es of their constitutional dut" not onl" to clearl" and distinctl" state the facts and the law on which a decision is based but also to resolve the decisive factual issues in an" given case. >>>. Bhether the /12 failure and refusal of onorable !ustice Ruben Re"es to inhibit himself, despite his admission N b" reason of his silence N of petitionersL accusation that the said !ustice en;o"ed a P#,. scholarship grant courtes" of the uncle%in%law of respondent corporationLs purported general manager and /+2, worse, his act of ruling against the
petitioners and in favor of the respondent corporation constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of petitionersL propert" without due process of law. 7+ >n addition to s. 4autistaLs lac5 of capacit" to sue, petitioners insist that respondent compan" has no standing to sue as a ;uridical person in view of the suspension and eventual revocation of its certificate of registration.77 he" li5ewise Cuestion the factual findings of the court on the bases of their e;ectment from the sub;ect premises. 'pecificall", the" fault the appellate court for not finding that- 12 their non% pa"ment of rentals was ;ustified? +2 the" were deprived of possession of all the units sub;ect of the lease contract e:cept Room 7@? and 72 respondent violated the terms of the contract b" its continued refusal to turn over possession of Rooms 76, 7# and 78. (etitioners further pra"ed that a emporar" Restraining Order /RO2 be issued en;oining the $A from enforcing its Resolution directing the issuance of a Brit of 0:ecution. hus, in a Resolution7* dated !anuar" 18, 1999, this $ourt directed the parties to maintain the status Cuo effective immediatel" until further orders. he petition lac5s merit. Be uphold the capacit" of respondent compan" to institute the e;ectment case. Although the 'ecurities and 0:change $ommission /'0$2 suspended and eventuall" revo5ed respondentLs certificate of registration on =ebruar" 16, 199@, records show that it instituted the action for e;ectment on December 1@, 1997. Accordingl", when the case was commenced, its registration was not "et revo5ed .7@ 4esides, as correctl" held b" the appellate court, the '0$ later set aside its earlier orders of suspension and revocation of respondentLs certificate, rendering the issue moot and academic.76 Be li5ewise affirm s. 4autistaLs capacit" to sue on behalf of the compan" despite lac5 of proof of authorit" to so represent it. A corporation has no powers e:cept those e:pressl" conferred on it b" the $orporation $ode and those that are implied from or are incidental to its e:istence. >n turn, a corporation e:ercises said powers through its board of directors andMor its dul" authori3ed officers and agents. (h"sical acts, li5e the signing of documents, can be performed onl" b" natural persons dul" authori3ed for the purpose b" corporate b"%laws or b" a specific act of the board of directors. 7# hus, an" person suing on behalf of the corporation should present proof of such authorit". Although s. 4autista initiall" failed to show that she had the capacit" to sign the verification and institute the e;ectment case on behalf of the compan", when confronted with such Cuestion, she immediatel" presented the 'ecretar"Ls $ertificate 78 confirming her authorit" to r epresent the compan". here is ample ;urisprudence holding that subseCuent and substantial compliance ma" call for the rela:ation of the rules of procedure in the interest of ;ustice. 79 >n )ovelt" (hils., >nc. v. $ourt of Appeals,* the $ourt faulted the appellate court for dismissing a petition solel" on petitionerLs failure to timel" submit proof of authorit" to sue on behalf of the corporation. >n (fi3er, >nc. v. &alan, *1 we upheld the sufficienc" of a petition verified b" an emplo"ment specialist despite the total absence of a board resolution authori3ing her to act for and on behalf of the corporation. astl", in $hina 4an5ing $orporation v. ondragon >nternational (hilippines, >nc, *+ we rela:ed the rules of procedure because the corporation ratified the managerLs status as an authori3ed signator". >n all of the above cases, we brushed aside technicalities in the interest of ;ustice. his is not to sa" that we disregard the reCuirement of prior authorit" to act in the name of a corporation. he rela:ation of the rules applies onl" to highl" meritorious cases, and when there is substantial compliance. Bhile it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of ;ustice, and while the swift unclogging of court doc5ets is a laudable ob;ective, we should not insist on strict adherence to the rules at the e:pense of substantial ;ustice. *7 echnical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not suppress, the cause of ;ustice? and a deviation from the rigid enforcement of the rules ma" be allowed to attain that prime ob;ective, for, after all, the dispensation of ;ustice is the core reason for the e:istence of courts.** As to the denial of the motion to inhibit !ustice Re"es, we find the same to be in order. =irst, the motion to inhibit came after the appellate court rendered the assailed decision, that is, after !ustice Re"es had alread" rendered his opinion on the merits of the case. >t is settled that a motion to inhibit shall be denied if filed after a member of the court had alread" given an opinion on the merits of the case, the rationale being that a litigant cannot be permitted to speculate on the action of the court : : : /onl" to2 raise an ob;ection of this sort after the decision has been rendered. *@ 'econd, it is settled that mere suspicion that a ;udge is partial to one of the parties is not enough? there should be evidence to
substantiate the suspicion. 4ias and pre;udice cannot be presumed, especiall" when weighed against a ;udgeLs sacred pledge under his oath of office to administer ;ustice without regard for an" person and to do right eCuall" to the poor and the rich. here must be a showing of bias and pre;udice stemming from an e:tra;udicial source, resulting in an opinion on the merits based on something other than what the ;udge learned from his participation in the case. *6 Be would li5e to reiterate, at this point, the polic" of the $ourt not to tolerate acts of litigants who, for ;ust about an" conceivable reason, see5 to disCualif" a ;udge /or ;ustice2 for their own purpose, under a plea of bias, hostilit", pre;udice or pre;udgment.*# Be now come to the more substantive issue of whether or not the petitioners ma" be validl" e;ected from the leased premises. nlawful detainer cases are summar" in nature. >n such cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the fact of lease and the e:piration or violation of its terms. *8 'pecificall", the essential reCuisites of unlawful detainer are- 12 the fact of lease b" virtue of a contract, e:press or implied? +2 the e:piration or termination of the possessorLs right to hold possession? 72 withholding b" the lessee of possession of the land or building after the e:piration or termination of the right to possess? *2 letter of demand upon lessee to pa" the rental or compl" with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises? and @2 the filing of the action within one "ear from the date of the last demand received b" the defendant.*9 >t is undisputed that petitioners and respondent entered into two separate contracts of lease involving nine /92 rooms of the 'an uis 4uilding. Records, li5ewise, show that respondent repeatedl" demanded that petitioners vacate the premises, but the latter refused to heed the demand? thus, the" remained in possession of the premises. he onl" contentious issue is whether there was indeed a violation of the terms of the contract- on the part of petitioners, whether the" failed to pa" the stipulated rent without ;ustifiable cause? while on the part of respondent, whether it prevented petitioners from occup"ing the leased premises e:cept Room 7@. his issue involves Cuestions of fact, the resolution of which reCuires the evaluation of the evidence presented. he e$, the R$ and the $A all found that petitioners failed to perform their obligation to pa" the stipulated rent. >t is settled doctrine that in a civil case, the conclusions of fact of the trial court, especiall" when affirmed b" the $ourt of Appeals, are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal b" the 'upreme $ourt.@ Albeit the rule admits of e:ceptions, not one of them obtains in this case.@1 o settle this issue once and for all, we deem it proper to assess the arra" of factual findings supporting the courtLs conclusion. he evidence of petitionersL non%pa"ment of the stipulated rent is overwhelming. (etitioners, however, claim that such non%pa"ment is ;ustified b" the following- 12 the refusal of respondent to allow petitioners to use the leased properties, e:cept room 7@? +2 respondentLs refusal to turn over Rooms 76, 7# and 78? and 72 respondentLs refusal to accept pa"ment tendered b" petitioners. (etitionersL ;ustifications are belied b" the evidence on record. As correctl" held b" the $A, petitionersL communications to respondent prior to the filing of the complaint never mentioned their alleged inabilit" to use the rooms.@+ Bhat the" pointed out in their letters is that the" did not 5now to whom pa"ment should be made, whether to s. 4autista or to (acheco .@7 >n their !ul" +6 and October 7, 1997 letters, petitioners onl" Cuestioned the method of computing their electric billings without, however, raising a complaint about their failure to use the rooms.@* Although petitioners stated in their December 7, 1997 letter that respondent failed to fulfill its part of the contract ,@@ nowhere did the" specificall" refer to their inabilit" to use the leased rooms. 4esides, at that time, the" were alread" in default on their rentals for more than a "ear. >f it were true that the" were allowed to use onl" one of the nine /92 rooms sub;ect of the contract of lease, and considering that the rooms were intended for a business purpose, we cannot understand wh" the" did not specificall" assert their right. >f we believe petitionersL contention that the" had been prevented from using the rooms for more than a "ear before the complaint for e;ectment was filed, the"
should have demanded specific performance from the lessor and commenced an action in court. Bith the e:ecution of the contract, petitioners were alread" in a position to e:ercise their right to the use and en;o"ment of the propert" according to the terms of the lease contract .@6 As borne out b" the records, the fact is that r espondent turned over to petitioners the 5e"s to the leased premises and petitioners, in fact, renovated the rooms. hus, the" were placed in possession of the premises and the" had the right to the use and en;o"ment of the same. he", li5ewise, had the right to resist an" act of intrusion into their peaceful possession of the propert", even as against the lessor itself. et, the" did not lift a finger to protect their right if, indeed, there was a violation of the contract b" the lessor. Bhat was, instead, clearl" established b" the evidence was petitionersL non%pa"ment of rentals because ostensibl" the" did not 5now to whom pa"ment should be made. owever, this did not ;ustif" their failure to pa", because if such were the case, the" were not without an" remed". he" should have availed of the provisions of the $ivil $ode of the (hilippines on the consignation of pa"ment and of the Rules of $ourt on interpleader. Article 1+@6 of the $ivil $ode provides Article 1+@6. >f the creditor to whom tender of pa"ment has been made refuses without ;ust cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from r esponsibilit" b" the consignation of the thing or sum due. $onsignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:::: /*2 Bhen two or more persons claim the same right to collect? : : : :. $onsignation shall be made b" depositing the things due at the disposal of a ;udicial authorit", before whom the tender of pa"ment shall be proved in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases.@# >n the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of pa"ment of the rentals. he rationale for consignation is to avoid the performance of an obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor b" reason of causes not imputable to him .@8 (etitioners claim that the" made a written tender of pa"ment and actuall" prepared vouchers for their monthl" rentals. 4ut that was insufficient to constitute a valid tender of pa"ment. 0ven assuming that it was valid tender, still, it would not constitute pa"ment for want of consignation of the amount. Bell%settled is the rule that tender of pa"ment must be accompanied b" consignation in order that the effects of pa"ment ma" be produced.@9 oreover, 'ection 1, Rule 6+ of the Rules of $ourt provides'ection 1. Bhen interpleader proper. N Bhenever conflicting claims upon the same sub;ect matter are or ma" be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the sub;ect matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed b" the claimants, he ma" bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not 5now to whom pa"ment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the propert" / or on the right to collect2.6 he remed" is afforded not to protect a person against double liabilit" but to protect him against double ve:ation in respect of one liabilit".61 )otabl", instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from ma5ing pa"ments.
)either can petitioners validl" invo5e the non%deliver" of Rooms 76, 7# and 78 as a ;ustification for non%pa"ment of rentals. Although the two contracts embraced the lease of nine /92 rooms, the terms of the contracts % with their particular reference to specific rooms and the monthl" rental for each % easil" raise the inference that the parties intended the lease of each room separate from that of the others.lavvphil here is nothing in the contract which would lead to the conclusion that the lease of one or more rooms was to be made dependent upon the lease of all the nine /92 rooms. Accordingl", the use of each room b" the lessee gave rise to the corresponding obligation to pa" the monthl" rental for the same. )otabl", respondent demanded pa"ment of rentals onl" for the rooms actuall" delivered to, and used b", petitioners. >t ma" also be mentioned that the contract specificall" provides that the lease of Rooms 76, 7# and 78 was to ta5e effect onl" when the tenants thereof would vacate the premises. Absent a clear showing that the previous tenants had vacated the premises, respondent had no obligation to deliver possession of the sub;ect rooms to petitioners. hus, petitioners cannot use the non%deliver" of Rooms 76, 7# and 78 as an e:cuse for their failure to pa" the rentals due on the other rooms the" occupied.1avvphil >n light of the foregoing disCuisition, respondent has ever" right to e:ercise his right to e;ect the erring lessees. he partiesL contracts of lease contain identical provisions, to wit>n case of default b" the 0''00 in the pa"ment of rental on the fifth /@th2 da" of each month, the amount owing shall as penalt" bear interest at the rate of =OR percent /*2 per month, to be paid, without pre;udice to the right of the 0''OR to terminate his contract, enter the premises, andMor e;ect the 0''00 as hereinafter set forth? 6+ oreover, Article 16#767 of the $ivil $ode gives the lessor the right to ;udiciall" e;ect the lessees in case of non%pa"ment of the monthl" rentals. A contract of lease is a consensual, bilateral, onerous and commutative contract b" which the owner temporaril" grants the use of his propert" to another, who underta5es to pa" the rent therefor .6* =or failure to pa" the rent, petitioners have no right to remain in the leased premises. B0R0=OR0, premises considered, the petition is D0)>0D and the 'tatus Guo Order dated !anuar" 18, 1999 is hereb" >=0D. he Decision of the $ourt of Appeals dated a" +6, 1998 and its Resolution dated December 1, 1998 in $A%&.R. '( )o. 7##79 are A==>R0D. 'O ORD0R0D.
G.R. No. 133113
A)6)t 30, 2001
E%GAR #. ARREZA, petitioner, vs.
MONANO M. %IAZ, 5R., respondent. !IS!MBING, J . his petition assails the decision 1 promulgated on December +*, 199#, and the resolution + dated arch 6, 1998, b" the $ourt of Appeals in $A%&.R '( )o. *789@. hat decision dismissed the petition for certiorari Cuestioning the order 7 dated =ebruar" *, 199# of the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati $it", 4ranch @9, in $ivil $ase )o. 96%17#+, which had denied petitioner
he petition was dismissed for lac5 of merit. he $ourt of Appeals saidhe decision invo5ed b" the petitioner as res adudicata resolved onl" the issue of who between 0dgar . Arre3a and ontano Dia3 has the better right over the propert" under litigation. >t did not resolve the rights and obligations of the parties. he action filed b" ontano . Dia3 against 4liss Development $orporation, et al. see5s principall" the collection of damages in the form of the pa"ments Dia3 made to the defendant and the value of the improvements he introduced on the propert" Q matters that were not ad;udicated upon in the previous case for interpleader. :::
:::
:::
B0R0=OR0, this petition is hereb" D>'>''0D with costs against the petitioner. he factual antecedents of the present petition are culled from the findings of the $ourt of Appeals. 'O ORD0R0D.@ 4liss Development $orporation is the owner of a housing unit located at ot +#. 4loc5 7 )ew $apitol 0states >, 4aranga" atandang 4alara, Gue3on $it". >n the course of a case involving a conflict of ownership between petitioner 0dgar . Arre3a and respondent ontano . Dia3, !r., * doc5eted as $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86 before the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati, 4ranch 1*6, 4liss Development $orporation filed a complaint for interpleader.
(etitioner
>n a decision dated arch +#, 1996, the trial court resolved the conflict b" decreeing as followsB0R0=OR0, premises considered, the herein interpleader is resolved in favor of defendant 0dgar . Arre3a, and plaintiff 4liss Development is granted cogni3ance of the a" 6, 1991 transfer of rights b" 0miliano and eonila elga3o thru anuel elga3o, to said defendant 0dgar Arre3a. he case is dismissed as against defendant ontano . Dia3, !r.
he third%part" complaint is li5ewise dismissed. >> 'O ORD0R0D. he decision became final and was dul" e:ecuted with 4liss e:ecuting a $ontract to 'ell the aforementioned propert" to petitioner Arre3a. Respondent Dia3 was constrained to deliver the propert" with all its improvements to petitioner. hereafter respondent Dia3 filed a complaint against 4liss Development $orporation, 0dgar . Arre3a, and Domingo apa" in the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati, 4ranch @9, doc5eted as $ivil $ase )o. 96% 17#+. e sought to hold 4liss Development $orporation and petitioner Arre3a liable for reimbursement to him of (1,#6,91@?@8 representing the cost of his acCuisition and improvements on the sub;ect propert" with interest at 8 per annum. (etitioner Arre3a filed a otion to Dismiss the case, citing as grounds res adudicata or conclusiveness of the ;udgment in the interpleader case as well as lac5 of cause of action. >n an Order dated =ebruar" *, 199#, the motion was denied for lac5 of merit. A otion for Reconsideration filed b" Arre3a was li5ewise denied on arch +, 199#. On April 16, 199#, Arre3a filed a petition for certiorari before the $ourt of Appeals alleging that the Orders dated =ebruar" * and arch +, 199#, were i ssued against clear provisions of pertinent laws, the Rules of $ourt, and established ;urisprudence such that respondent court acted without or in e:cess of ;urisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac5 or e:cess of ;urisdiction.
he issue for our r esolution now is whether respondent Dia3
resolution, no similar cause of action e:ists between the prior case and the present case, according to respondent Dia3.
he elements of res adudicata are- /a2 that the former ;udgment must be final? /b2 the court which rendered ;udgment had ;urisdiction over the parties and the sub;ect matter? /c2 it must be a ;udgment on the merits? and /d2 there must be between the first and second causes of action identit" of the parties, sub;ect matter, and cause of action .8
Respondent in effect argues that it was incumbent upon petitioner as a part" in $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86 to put in issue respondent
Borth" of note, the prior case for interpleader filed with 4ranch 1*6 of the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati, $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86, was settled with finalit" with this $ourttalics supplied2 Respondent in his answer also pra"ed thatD. 'hould the said additional provision be found valid and in the event his co%defendant is found to possess better rights, to ad;udge him /Dia32 entitled to rights as a bu"er in good faith and for value.11 4" asserting his right as a bu"er for value and in good faith of the sub;ect propert", and as5ing for relief arising therefrom, respondent invo5ed the ;urisdiction of the trial court. aving invo5ed the ;urisdiction of the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati /4ranch 1*62 b" filing his answer to secure affirmative relief against petitioner, respondent is now estopped from challenging the ;urisdiction of said court after it had decided the case against him. 'urel" we cannot condone here the undesirable practice of a part" submitting his case for decision and then accepting the ;udgment onl" if favorable, but attac5ing it on grounds of ;urisdiction when adverse.1+ Respondent also claims that there is no identit" of causes of action between $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86, the prior case, and $ivil $ase )o. 96%17#+, the present case sub;ect of this petition, as the former involved a complaint for interpleader while the latter now involves an action for a sum of mone" and damages. e avers that a complaint for interpleader is nothing more than the determination of rights over the sub;ect matter involved. >n its assailed decision, respondent $ourt of Appeals pointed out that the 199# Rules of $ivil (rocedure provide that in a case for interpleader, the court shall determine the respective rights and obligations of the parties and ad;udicate their respective claims. 17 he appellate court noted, however, that the defendants in that interpleader case, namel" Dia3 and Arre3a, did not pursue the issue of damages and reimbursement although the answer of respondent Dia3 did pra" for affirmative relief arising out of the rights of a bu"er in good faith. 1* =ollowing the same tac5, respondent Dia3 now alleges that the issues in the prior case, $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86, were delimited b" the pre%trial order which did not include matters of damages and reimbursement as an i ssue. e faults petitioner for not raising such issues in the prior case, with the result that the trial court did not resolve the rights and obligations of the parties. here being no such
(ursuant to said Rules, respondent should have filed his claims against petitioner Arre3a in the interpleader action. aving asserted his rights as a bu"er in good faith in his answer, and pra"ing relief therefor, respondent Dia3 should have cr"stalli3ed his demand into specific claims for reimbursement b" petitioner Arre3a. his he failed to do. 'uch failure gains significance in light of our ruling in &acla4on vs. Court of Appeals, 18+ '$RA #61, ##1%##+ /1992, where this $ourt said A corollar" Cuestion that Be might as well resolve now /although not raised as an issue in the present petition, but conformabl" with $a4os% et al. v. $a4os% et al ., &.R. )o. %+#81+, 'eptember +6, 19#', 6# '$RA 1*6, that it is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should alwa"s strive to settle the entire controvers" in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds in f uture litigation2 is whether or not the private respondents can still file a separate complaint against the petitioners on the ground that the" are builders in good faith and conseCuentl", recover the value of the improvements introduced b" them on the sub;ect lot. he case of 5eirs of Laureano 'ar#ue( v. )alencia, 99 (hil. #*, provides the answer>f, aside from rel"ing solel" on the deed of sale with a right to repurchase and failure on the part of the vendors to purchase it within the period stipulated therein, the defendant had set up an alternative though inconsistent defense that he had inherited the parcel of land from his late maternal grandfather and presented evidence in support of both defenses, the overruling of the first would not bar the determination b" the court of the second. !he defendant having failed to set up such alternative defenses and chosen or elected to rel4 on one onl4% the overruling thereof was a coplete deterination of the controvers4 etween the parties which ars a suse#uent action ased upon an unplea ded defense% or an4 other cause of action% e6cept that of Failure of the coplaint to state a cause of action and of lac7 of urisdiction of the Court. !he deterination of the issue oined 4 the parties constitutes res udicata. />talics supplied2
Although the alternative defense of being builders in good faith is onl" permissive, the counterclai for reiurseent of the value of the iproveents is in the nature of a copulsor4 counterclai. hus, the failure b" the private respondents to set it up bars their
right to raise it in a subseCuent litigation /Rule 9, 'ection * of the Rules of $ourt2. Bhile Be reali3e the plight of the private respondents, the rule on compulsor" counterclaim is designed to enable the disposition of the whole controvers" at one time and in one action. he philosoph" of the rule is to discourage multiplicit" of suits. />talics supplied2 aving failed to set up his claim for reimbursement, said claim of respondent Dia3 being in the nature of a compulsor" counterclaim is now barred.16 >n cases involving res adudicata, the parties and the causes of action are identical or substantiall" the same in the prior as well as the subseCuent action. he ;udgment in the first action is conclusive as to ever" matter offered and received therein and as to an4 other atter adissile therein and which
ight have een offered for that purpose, hence said ;udgment is an absolute bar to a subseCuent
action for the same cause.1# he bar e:tends to Cuestions necessaril" involved in an issue, and necessaril" ad;udicated, or necessaril" implied in the final ;udgment, although no specific finding ma" have been made in reference thereto, and although such matters were directl" referred to in the pleadings and were not actuall" or formall" presented 18 'aid prior ;udgment is conclusive in a subseCuent suit between the same parties on the same sub;ect matter, and on the same cause of action, not onl" as to matters which were decided in the first action, but also as to ever" other matter which the parties could have properl4 set up in the prior suit .19 >n the present case, we find there is an identit" of causes of action between $ivil $ase )o. 9*%+86 and $ivil $ase )o. 96%17#+. Respondent Dia3
G.R. No. (9132 $ebr)*r+ 2, 1990 LEONCIA, MAN!EL, %IOS%A%A, ANONIA, ISI%RO, GERONIMO, CRESENCIO, ALE5AN%RO, BONI$ACIA, A!RELIO, EPI$ANIO, POLICARPO, IRENEO, ALL S!RNAME% BACLAON< #RS. o AGRIPINA BACLAON, rep. b+ L!CIA BACLAON< #RS. o MO%ESA BACLAON, rep. b+ $ILING BACLAON< #RS. O$ #IPOLIO BACLAON, rep. B MARIO BACLAON< #RS. O$ OMAS BACLAON, rep. b+ CRISIO BACLAON< SIL-ESRE ABANES< #RS. o LEONICA ABELLARE, rep. b+ $ELI= BACLAON< CECILIA, #ERMINIA, $ELI=, CONCOR%IA, *:: )r*me/ %ELA -ICORIA< */ #E #ON. 5!%GE GERMAN LEE, 5R., Pre8/86 5)/6e o Br*; =-, RC, Ceb), petitioners, vs.
B0R0=OR0, the instant petition is &RA)0D. he decision dated December +*, 199# and the resolution dated arch 6, 1998 of the $ourt of Appeals in $A%&.R. '( )o. *789@ are R00R'0D and '0 A'>D0. $ivil $ase )o. 96%17#+ before the Regional rial $ourt of a5ati $it", 4ranch @9, is hereb" ordered D>'>''0D as against herein petitioner 0dgar . Arre3a. $osts against respondent. 'O ORD0R0D.
Jesus 8. &orroeo for private respondents.
ME%IAL%EA, J.: his is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the $ourt of Appeals dated April +8, 1989 ordering the trial court, in a hearing supplementar" to e:ecution, to receive private respondents< evidence to prove that the" are builders in good faith of the improvements and the value of said improvements, and its resolution dated !une +, 1989 den"ing the motion for reconsideration. he antecedent facts are as followsOn a" #, 1969, petitioners eoncia, artin, (olicarpio, ilarion, >reneo, !uliana and omas, all surnamed 4acla"on? Rosendo, =elicidad and 'ilvestra, all surnamed Abanes? and omasa, eoncia, Anacleto, onica, &uillerma and &ertrudes all surnamed Abellare filed with the then $=>%$ebu 4ranch +, in $ivil $ase )o. R%1118@, a complaint for recover" of ownership and possession, and damages, against spouses arciano 4acalso and ®oria 'abande;a of ot )o. @@+8 of the $ebu $adastre. he latter filed their answer thereto on !ul" 1@, 1969. On December +, 198+, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the 4acalso spouses, declaring them owners of the sub;ect lot, which decision was appealed b" the petitioners to the respondent $ourt of Appeals. he case was doc5eted as A$%&.R. $ )o. *9*8. On !ul" +9, 1986, the respondent court rendered a decision reversing the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows /p. 1@, Rollo2B0R0=OR0, the decision a Cuo is hereb" reversed and set aside and another one is r endered declaring plaintiffs%appellants as heirs of the late atias 4acla"on the owners of ot )o. @@+8 of the $ebu $adastre covered b" Original $ertificate of itle )o. +#+6 /O%)A2 of the Registr" of Deeds of $ebu / 0:h. >2 and ordering defendants to vacate the lot and surrender the same to plaintiffs. )o costs. 'O ORD0R0D. he private respondents then elevated the case to this $ourt b" filing a petition for review which was, however, denied in the Resolution dated a" +#, 198#.
he decision in favor of the petitioners having become final and e:ecutor", the" filed a motion for e:ecution of ;udgment and possession which was opposed b" the private respondents. he opposition was based on the pronouncement of the respondent court in its decision dated !ul" +9, 1986, to wit /p. 16, Rollo2)o fraud or bad faith could be imputed on the part of the 4acalso spouses. he" believed the lot the" bought from 'egundo 4acla"on was the land the" occupied. he private respondents argued that since the" were found b" the respondent court as builders andMor planters in good faith and Article @*6 of the $ivil $ode ordains that the necessar" and useful e:penses for the improvements must be paid to the buildersMplanters in good faith with right of retention, a reception of evidence to determine the correct value of the necessar" and useful improvements must be done first before ordering the e:ecution. he R$%4ranch 1@, $ebu $it", presided b" !udge &erman &. ee, !r., in its order, dated arch 8, 1988, granted the motion for e:ecution of ;udgment and possession, to wit /p. 16, Rollo2-
An e:amination of the records of this case reveals that until now, there is "et no action b" the $ourt of Appeals on the $larificator" motion filed b" the losing part". he $ourt has allowed this e:cuse to defer its issuance of an order of demolition after the prevailing part" has pra"ed the $ourt to issue one. Bith the long passage of time, since the ;udgment in this case has become final, this $ourt cannot allow an" further dela" in the enforcement of its ;udgment. B0R0=OR0, it is finall" ordered that the losing part" in this case be given fifteen /1@2 da"s from toda" within which to effect a voluntar" removal of an" improvements that the" have introduced in the premises, considering that the prevailing part" refused to reimburse the losing part" therefor, and if the" do not demolish it after the e:piration of this 1@ da"s, this $ourt will be constrained to order its demolition as pra"ed for. > >' 'O ORD0R0D.
ORD0R his is finall", acting on the otion for 0:ecution of !udgment and (ossession filed b" Att". &arcillano in this case and the re;oinder of Att". )acua and the plaintiffs< re;oinder dated =ebruar" 11 and the manifestation of Att". &arcillano of =ebruar" +6, 1988. >t appearing that the dispositive portion of the decision of the $ourt of Appeals which is now being enforced categoricall" declares plaintiffsMappellants as heirs of the late atias 4acla"on, the owner of ot )o. @@+6 /sic2 of the $ebu $adastre, covered b" Original $ertificate of itle )o. +#+8 /sic2 /%)A2 of the Registr" of Deeds of $ebu /0:h. 12 and ordering the defendants to vacate the lot and surrender the same to the plaintiffs, this $ourt is not in a position to entertain an" further claims b" an" parties in connection with said case. owever, if the clients of Att". )acua believe that the" can prove their claims, then the" should file a separate civil case to recover the same as this $ourt cannot pass ;udgment anew on certain claims that should have been interposed as counter%claims in this case. Bherefore, the Opposition to the issuance of the Brit of e:ecution is hereb" D0)>0D, as the $ler5 of $ourt is hereb" ordered to issue a writ of 0:ecution in this case. 'O ORD0R0D. he private respondents appealed the said order of arch 8, 1988 b" filing a notice of appeal dated arch 7, 1988 which appeal was, however, dismissed b" !udge ee in the order dated April 1@, 1988. On April +9, 1988, the petitioners filed a motion for writ of possession and demolition to which motion the private respondents filed their opposition reiterating the ground in the opposition to the motion for e:ecution and possession. !udge ee, thereafter, issued the order dated August 19, 1988, to wit /p. 1#, Rollo2ORD0R
On 'eptember 19, 1988, the private respondents filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with the respondent court concerning the orders dated arch 8, 1988 and August 19, 1988. On April +8, 1989, the respondent court granted the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows /p. +1, Rollo2B0R0=OR0, the orders of arch 8,1988 and August 19, 1988 issued in $ivil $ase )o. R%1118@ b" the R$%$ebu $it", 4ranch 1@, are hereb" '0 A'>D0 and A))0D. >n a hearing supplementar" to e:ecution, the said court is hereb" ordered to receive petitioners< evidence to prove that the" are builders in good faith of the improvements and the value of the said improvements introduced b" them in the sub;ect ot @@+8. > >' 'O ORD0R0D. he motion for reconsideration was denied. ence, the present petition. he onl" issue is whether or not the private respondents should be allowed, in a hearing supplementar" to e:ecution, to present evidence to prove that the" are builders in good faith of the improvements and the value of said improvements. (etitioners allege that the orders dated arch 8, 1988 and August 19, 1988 are legitimate having been issued b" a ;udge presiding a court of competent ;urisdiction, pursuant to his duties which are ministerial in nature, to enforce a decision which is alread" final and e:ecutor". >n ordering the trial court to receive private respondentn the former case, (acific erchandising $orporation /(acific2 filed a complaint against )aga Development $orporation /)aga2 for the balance of its indebtedness in the amount of (1*7,+8+.#6. =or failure to file an answer within the period, )aga was declared in default. >n its affidavit of merit attached to the motion to set aside
the order of default, )aga asserted that it had made certain pa"ments to (acific which should be deducted from the amount of the claim. he motion was denied. A ;udgment b" default was rendered ordering )aga to pa" said balance of indebtedness. he decision was affirmed b" the $ourt of Appeals and also b" this $ourt, with the Cualification that )aga was allowed to prove, during the process of e:ecution of the ;udgment, whatever pa"ments it had made to (acific, either before or after the filing of the complaint, which constitute a proper deduction from the principal sum ordered to be paid. hus, Be rationali3ed /*1 '$RA 11@%11624earing in mind the nature of the instant suit and considering that the $ourt of Appeals< concurrence in the trial courtn the latter case, an action for recover" of damages as a result of a vehicular accident was filed b" Rosita ap da. de $hi against Alfonso $orominas, !r., the owner of the bus, and 'implicio awas, the driver. 'ince the vehicle was insured, a third%part" complaint was filed against the suret" compan". he trial court rendered ;udgment against $orominas, !r. and awas b" ordering them ;ointl" and severall" to pa" (*,7+.71 to da. de $hi. >n turn, the suret" compan" was ordered to indemnif" $orominas, !r. b" the same amount. A writ of e:ecution was issued against the defendants and the suret" compan". he decision was onl" partiall" satisfied because (6,#. has remained unpaid. ater, upon motion of the 'outhern >slands ospital, the trial court ordered the suret" compan" to pa" directl" to the hospital the amount of (686.7@ out of the residue of the unpaid ;udgment? upon motion of the $hong ua ospital, the trial court issued another order reCuiring $orominas, !r. and the suret" compan" to pa" the hospital the amount of (*,+78.@6. hese two orders were Cuestioned before this $ourt b" da. de $hi. Be set aside said orders and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing, after proper notice to the parties, to determine whether or not the hospital bills incurred b" da. de $hi have been paid, and thereafter, to render a decision accordingl". hus, Be e:plained /111 '$RA 196%19#2echnicall" it was error for the respondent $ourt to order the defendants and the suret" compan" to pa" the respondents 'outhern >slands ospital and $hong ua ospital the amounts of (686.7@ and (*,+78.@6, respectivel", from the balance of the ;udgment "et to be paid to the herein petitioner b" the defendants and the suret" compan" since the said respondents are not parties in the case. he ;udgment sought to be e:ecuted specificall" ordered the defendants Alfonso $orominas, !r. and 'implicio awas to pa", ;ointl" and severall", the plaintiff Rosita ap da. de $hi, the amount of (*,7+.71, plus costs? and for the suret" compan" to indemnif" the defendant Alfonso $orominas, !r. the amount of (*,7+.71, which the said defendant is ordered to pa" the plaintiff. $onseCuentl", to order the pa"ment of certain portions thereof to the herein respondent hospitals, 'outhern >slands ospital and $hong ua ospital, would be to modif", alter, or var" the terms of the ;udgment. Bhile the said respondents ma" have an interest over the said amounts claimed b" them, their remed" was not to file a mere e:% parte motion before the court, but to file separate and independent actions before courts of competent ;urisdiction, since the ;udgment rendered in the case had
alread" become final and almost e:ecuted and the law allows no intervention after the trial has been terminated. On the other hand, it cannot also be denied that the sums of mone" in Cuestion have been awarded to the herein petitioner as e:penses for her hospitali3ation in the respondent hospitals and are based upon petitionern the )aga case, the defense of pa"ments made to (acific which are properl" deductible from the principal sum ordered to be paid b" )aga to (acific was part of the issues which )aga was not allowed to prove, being alread" in default. >n the da. de $hi case, her claim of hospitali3ation e:penses incurred in the respondent hospital has been litigated and ad;udged. he respondent court failed to appreciate that this shared denominator does not obtain in the present case. he defense of builders in good faith of the i mprovements and evidence of the value of said improvements were not raisedM presented before the trial court. ore importantl", in the recent case of First Integrated &onding and Insurance Co.% Inc.% et al. v. Isnani% etc.% et al.% &.R. #+*6, !ul" 71, 1989, which involved a similar issue, Be ruled'ignificantl", the decision of 'eptember 7, 19#1 in 8aga "evelopent Corporation vs. Court of Appeals% on which total reliance has been placed b" the petitioners, does not appear to have been reaffirmed b" this $ourt in subseCuent cases. >t is !ustice Antonio 4arredo believe that since )aga has been declared in default, and no grave abuse of discretion having been found b" the $ourt in that respect, the ;udgment b" default must stand and be e:ecuted, as is. 9hether or not 8aga has partiall4 paid was part of the issue efore the court efore udgent was rendered% )aga through its own fault was not allowed to prove an" such partial pa"ment b" the trial court? surel", that issue cannot e reopened during the e6ecution ecause that would tend to var4 the ters of the udgent.he matters of eCuit"
