Search
Home
Saved
606 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
GSIS v. GMC Uploaded by Sean Galvez
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
case digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Griffith vs CA
of 5
Palafox vs Province of Ilocos
ATO v Sps. Ramos (Case
Search document
GSIS v. GMC Suability v. Liability GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) AND LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING
SUMMARY: (LONG CASE! Look at 3 rd issue!) That the exemption exemption of GSIS is not absolute and does not encompass all of its funds, to wit: In so far as Section 39 of the GSIS charter exempts the GSIS from execution, suffice it to say that such exemption is not absolute and does not encompass all the GSIS funds. THUS, IT MAY SUE AND BE SUED, AS AS ALSO, EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY ITS CHARTER. TO SAY, WHERE PROPER, UNDER SECTION 36, THE GSIS MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CONTRACTS IT HAS ENTERED INTO IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS INVESTMENTS.For GSIS cannot claim a special immunity from liability in regard to its business ventures under said Section. Nor can it deny contracting parties, in our view, the right of redress and the enforcement of a claim, particularly as i t arises from a purely contractual contractual relationship, of a private character between an individual and the GSIS.
NATURE: two consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari concerning 78 parcels of land located in Barri Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City -
In the Petition in G.R. No. 167000, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals In the Petition in G.R. No. 169971, Group Management Corporation (GMC) seeks to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
(LLDHC-GSIS – (LLDHC-GSIS – orig orig contract over the lots) (GMC – (GMC – bought bought the lots) FACTS: -
Lapu-Lapu Development & Housing Corporation (LLDHC) was the registered owner of seventyeight (78) lots (subject lots), situated in Barrio Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City. LLDHC and the GSIS entered into a Project and Loan Agreement for the development of the subject lots. GSIS agreed to extend a Twenty-Five Million Peso-loan (P25,000,000.00) to LLDHC, and in return, LLDHC will develop, subdivide, and sell i ts lots to GSIS members. To secure the payment of the loan, LLDHC executed a real estate mortgage over the subject lots in favor of GSIS. For LLDHC’s failure to fulfill its obligations, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage. As the lone bidder in the public auction sale, GSIS acquired the subject lots, and eventually was able to consolidate its ownership over the subject lots with the corresponding transfer certificat of title (TCTs) issued in its name. GMC offered to purchase on installments the subject lots from GSIS for a total price of One Million One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,100,000.00), with the aggregate area specified as 423,177 square meters. GSIS accepted the offer and on February 26, 1980, executed a Deed of Conditional Sale over the subject lots. However, when GMC discovered that the total area of the subject lots was only 298,504 square meters, it wrote GSIS and proposed to proportionately proportionately reduce the purchase price to conform to the actual total area of the subject lots. GSIS approved this proposal and an Amendment to the Deed of Conditional Sale was executed to reflect the final sales agreement between GSIS and GMC. (FIRST CIVIL CASE – CASE – LLDHC LLDHC v GSIS) - L LDHC filed a complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure with Wri of Mandatory Injunction against GSIS before the R TC of Manila (Manila RTC). (second civil case – case – GMC GMC v. GSIS) GMC filed its own complaint against GSIS fortitle Specific Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote to Performance with Damages before the Lapu-Lapu RTC. The complaint was to compel GSIS Useful Not useful execute a Final Deed of Sale over the subject lots since the purchase price had already been Cancel anytime. fully paid by GMC. Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. GSIS, submitted to the court a Commission on Audit (COA) Memorandum , purportedly
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
606 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
GSIS v. GMC Uploaded by Sean Galvez
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
case digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Griffith vs CA
of 5
Palafox vs Province of Ilocos
ATO v Sps. Ramos (Case
Search document
GSIS v. GMC Suability v. Liability -
-
-
-
-
-
LLDHC filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari in seeking to annul the February 24, 1992 Decision of the Lapu-Lapu RTC, again alleged that the Manila RTC Decision nullified the LapuLapu RTC Decision. But Dismissal of this petition is inevitable. (DISMISSED, mere repetition of the previous case already dismissed) The Lapu-Lapu RTC issued an Order directing the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 2203-L (GMC and GSIS) The Motions to Stay Execution filed by LLDHC and GSIS were denied LLDHC filed a Petition for Certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, praying that GMC and the Lapu-Lapu RTC be ordered to cease and desist from proceeding with the execution of its Decision in Civil Case No. 2203-L, on the theory that the Manila RTC decision was a supervening event which made it mandatory for the Lapu-Lapu RTC to stop the execution of its decision. On July 21, 1997, because of GSIS’s continued refusal to implement the December 17, 1996 Writ o Execution, the Lapu-Lapu RTC, upon GMC’s motion, issued an Orderredirecting its instructions to the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City The Lapu-Lapu RTC thus directed the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to effect the transfer o the titles to the subject lots in favor of GMC and declared "any and all acts done by the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City null and void starting with the surreptitious issuance of the new certificates of title in the name of [LLDHC], contrary" to its decision and orders. GMC CAME TO THIS COURT ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LAPU-LAPU RTC For lack of sufficient basis the charge of contempt of court against respondent Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing Corporation and the public respondents is hereby DISMISSED. HOWEVER, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, THE SPECIAL NINETEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CAME OUT WITH ITS OWN DECISION IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 84382. I T GRANTED LLDHC’S PE TITION, CONTRARY TO THE COUR T OF APPEALS’ DECISI ON IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 85096, AND ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE THE MARCH 11, 2004 ORDER OF THE LAPU-LAPU RTC Meanwhile, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction earlier issued is hereby declared PERMANENT GSIS and GMC are now before this Court, with their separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari assailing the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85096 and CA-G.R. SP No. 84382 respectively.
G.R. No. 167000 You're Reading a Preview GSIS is assailing the Orders issued by the Lapu-Lapu RTC on March 11, 2004 and May 7, 2004 for being legally unenforceable on GSIS because the titles of the 78 lots in Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu Unlock full access with a free trial. City were already in L LDHC’s name, due to the final and executory judgment rendered by the Manila RTC in Civil Case No. R-82-3429 LLDHC alleges that because of this "supervening event," GSIS cannot be compelled to execute a Download With Free Trial final deed of sale i n GMC’s favor, and "LLDHC cannot be divested of i ts titles, ownership and possession" of the subject properties. -
-
GMC in its comment argues that GSIS has no legal standing to institute this petition because it ha no more interest in the subject lots, since i t is no longer i n possession and the titles thereto have already been registered in LLDHC’s name. GMC claims that the decision of the Special Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals is barred by res judicata, and that LLDHC is guilty of forum shopping for filing several petitions before the Court of Appeals and this Court wi th the same issues and arguments.
G.R. No. 169971 Master your semester with Scribd GMC is praying that the decision of the Special Nineteenth of the of Appeals in CA Read Free For 30Court Days SignDivision up to vote on this title G.R. SP No. 84382 be reversed and set aside. & The New York Times Useful Not useful GMC is claiming that the Court of Appeals, in rendering the said decision, committed Cancel anytime.
LLDHC in its comment insists that there is a supervening event which rendered it necessary to stay Special offer for students:- Only $4.99/month. the execution of the judgment of the Lapu-Lapu RTC.
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
606 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
GSIS v. GMC Uploaded by Sean Galvez
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
case digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Griffith vs CA
of 5
Palafox vs Province of Ilocos
ATO v Sps. Ramos (Case
Search document
GSIS v. GMC Suability v. Liability
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. This is referred to as the "doctrine o finality of judgments," and this doctrine applies even to the highest court of the land. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by l aw; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. Both GSIS and LLDHC claim that the execution of the decision and orders in Civil Case No. 2203-L should be stayed because of the occurrence of "supervening events" which render the executio of the judgment "impossible, unfair, unjust and inequitable." However, in order for an event to be considered a supervening event to justify the alteration or modification of a final judgment, the event must have transpired after the judgment has become final and executory, Therefore, the ruling by the Manila RTC (GSIS & LLDHC) is evidently not a supervening event. It wa already in existence even before the decision in (GSIS & GM) Civil Case No. 2203-L attained finality. Since the Manila RTC decision does not constitute a supervening event, there is therefore neither reason nor justification to alter, modify or annul the Lapu-Lapu RTC Decision and Orders, which have long become final and executory. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, GMC MUST NOT BE DEPRIVED OF ITS RIGHT TO ENJOY THE FRUITS OF A FINAL VERDICT.
Petitioner likewise claims that Private Respondent GMC cannot escape the adverse effects of the final and executory judgment of the Manila RTC. Again, we do not agree. A trial court has no power to stop an act that has been authorized by another trial court of equa rank. As correctly stated by the CA, the Decision rendered by the Manila RTC -- while final and executory -- cannot bind herein private respondent [GMC], which was not a party to the case before the said RTC. A personal judgment is binding only upon the parties, their agents, representatives and successors in interest.
You're Reading a Preview
Third, petitioner grievously errs in insisting that the judgment of the Manila RTC nullified that of the Lapulapu RTC. Unlock full access with a free trial. As already adverted to earlier, courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may not interfere with or pass upon each other’s orders or processes, since they have the same power and jurisdiction. Download With Free Trial Except in extreme situations authorized by l aw, they are proscribed from doing so.(Emphases supplied.)
It bears repeating that the issue of w hether or not the Manila RTC Decision could nullify or render unenforceable the Lapu Lapu RTC Decision has been litigated many times over in different fora. It would be the height of inequity if the Court were to now reverse the Court of Appeals’ and its own final and executory rulings and allow GSIS to prevent the execution of the Lapu Lapu RTC Decision on the same legal grounds previously discredited by the courts.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times
Second Issue: Res Judicata GMC asserts that the petition herein by GSIS in G.R. No.Read 167000 are barred by res judicata as the Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title issues involved had been fully resolved not only by the lower courts but by this Court as well. Useful Not useful GSIS and LLDHC both insist that res judicata does not apply asCancel this Court "has not yet rendered a anytime. decision involving the same or any similar petition." Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. All three parties herein are in agreement with the facts that led to the petitions in this case. However, not all of them agree that the matters involved in this case have already been judi ciall
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
606 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
GSIS v. GMC Uploaded by Sean Galvez
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
case digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Griffith vs CA
of 5
Palafox vs Province of Ilocos
ATO v Sps. Ramos (Case
Search document
GSIS v. GMC Suability v. Liability
-
-
GSIS asserts that the assailed Orders cannot be enforced upon it given the physical and legal impossibility for it to comply as the titles over the subject properties were transferred to LLDHC under the Manila RTC writ of execution. A closer perusal of the March 11, 2004 and May 7, 2004 Orders shows that GSIS’s argument holds no water. GSIS’s argument of legal and physical impossibility of compliance with the assailed Orders is baseless. GSIS ALSO ARGUES THAT IT CANNOT BE THE "SUBJECT [OF ANY] EXECUTION INCLUDING [THE] PAYMENT OF ANY DAMAGE AND OTHER MONETARY JUDGMENTS BECAUSE ALL GSIS FUNDS AND PROPERTIES ARE ABSOLUTELY AND EXPRESSLY EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION AND OTHER LEGAL PROCESSES UNDER SECTION 39 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8291."
Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291 provides: SECTION 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. — It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State that the actuarial solvency of the funds of the GSIS shall be preserved and maintained at all times and that contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits under this Act shall be kept as low as possible in order not to burden the members of the GSIS and their employers. Taxes imposed on the GSIS tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of this Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the GSIS, its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charge or duties of all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically revoked and any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid. Consequently, all laws, ordinances, regulations, issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrary to or in derogation of this provision are hereby deemed repealed, superseded and rendered ineffective and without legal force an effect. x x x x The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or work except when his monetary liability You're Reading a Preview contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.
Unlock full access with a free trial.
-
This Court, in Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System, held that the exemption of GSIS is not absolute and does not encompass all of its funds, to wit: In so far as Section 39 of the GSIS charter exempts the GSIS from execution, suffice it to say that such exemption is not absolute and Download With Free Trial does not encompass all the GSIS funds. By way of illustration and as may be gleaned from the Implementing Rules and Regulation of GSIS Act of 1997, one exemption refers to social security benefits and other benefits of GSIS members under Republic Act No. 8291 in connection with financial obligations of the members to other parties. The pertinent GSIS Rule provides: Rule XV. Funds of the GSIS Section 15.7 Exemption of Benefits of Members from Tax, Attachment, Execution, Levy or other Legal Processes. – The social security benefits and other benefits of GSIS members under R.A. 8291 shall be exempt from tax, attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi judicial agencies or administrative bodies in connection with all financial obligations of the member, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or duties or incurred in connection with his position or work, as well as Read Free For 30this Days Sign up to vote on title COA disallowances. Monetary liability in favor of the GSIS, however, may be deducted from the benefits o Useful Not useful the member. [Emphasis supplied] Cancel anytime.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. -
The processual exemption of the GSIS funds and properties under Section 39 of the GSIS Charter,
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
606 views
0
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
GSIS v. GMC Uploaded by Sean Galvez
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
case digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Griffith vs CA
of 5
Palafox vs Province of Ilocos
ATO v Sps. Ramos (Case
Search document
GSIS v. GMC Suability v. Liability -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HELD: -
For GSIS cannot claim a special immunity from li ability in regard to i ts business ventures under said Section. Nor can it deny contracting parties, in our view, the right of redress and the enforcemen of a claim, particularly as it arises from a purely contractual relationship, of a private character between an individual and the GSIS. In this case, the monetary judgments against GSIS arose from its failure to comply with its private and contractual obligation to GMC. As such, GSIS cannot claim immunity from the enforcement of the final and executory judgment against it.
Fourth Issue: Forum Shopping this Court already found LLDHC guilty of forum shopping and was adjudged to pay treble costs way back in 2002 There is forum shopping whenever, as a r esult of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) from another. There is forum shopping when two or more actions or proceedings, other than appeal or certiorari, involving the same parties for the same cause of action, are i nstituted either simultaneously or successively to obtain a more favorable decision. It is undeniable that both LLDHC and GSIS are guilty of forum shopping, for having gone through several actions and proceedings from the lowest court to this Court in the hopes that they will obtain a decision favorable to them. In all those actions, only one issue was in contention: the ownership of the subject lots. In the process, the parties degraded the administration of justice, congested our court dockets, and abused our judicial system. Moreover, the simultaneous and successive actions filed below have resulted in conflicting decisions rendered by not only the trial courts but also by dif ferent divisions of the Court of Appeals. As this Court held in the earlier case of LLDHC against GMC: "[The] insidious practice of repeatedly bringing essentially the same action – albeit disguised in various nomenclatures – before different courts at different times is forum shopping no less."
Conclusion Although it is settled that the Lapu-Lapu R TC Decision was not in any way nullified by the Manila RTC Decision, it is this Court’s duty to resolve the legal implications of having two conflicting, final and executory decisions in existence. You're Reading a Preview In summary, this Court finds the execution of the Lapu-Lapu RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 2203-L to be in order. We affirm the Unlock assailed Orders March 2004 and May 7, 2004, which reiterate, full accessofwith a free11, trial. among others, the October 23, 1997 Order issued by the Lapu-Lapu RTC, directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to cancel the certificates of title of LLDHC and to issue new ones in GMC’s name. Whatever rights are due LLDHC from GSIS as a result of the final judgment of the Download With Free Trial Manila RTC in Civil Case No. R-82-3429, which we have previously held to be binding between GSIS and LLDHC, may be threshed out in an appropriate proceeding. Such proceeding shall not further delay the execution of the Lapu-Lapu RTC Decision.
The petition in G.R. No. 167000 is DENIED and the Decision dated November 25, 2004 and Resolution dated January 20, 2005 of the Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED The petition in G.R. No. 169971 is GRANTED and the Decision dated September 23, 2005 of the Special Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Not useful Cancel anytime.
Useful
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
