7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

1/21

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ, Clerk of Court IV,Mun ! "#l Tr #l Court n C t e$, Ur%#net# C t&, P#n'#$ n#n, respondent .

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J .(

The Case

This administrative case for Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct against respondentCelestina B Corpu! originated from another administrative case, A M "o MT#$%%$&&%%'&( entitled ) Francisco Lu vs.Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapno, MTC-Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Do ingo S. Lope!, S"eri## $%, &TC-Urdaneta,Pangasinan, 'ranc" () and Private Prosecutor Joselino A. %ira*. * In A M "o MT#$%%$&&%%, the Court, in its +ecisiondated #uly -... , '-( directed the Court Administrator to institute an administrative case against respondent CelestinaCorpu! /)Corpu!*0, Cler1 of Court I2 of the MTC$3rdaneta '4(

The Facts

5rancisco Lu /)Lu*0 was the defendant in a civil case for e6ectment '7( raffled to #udge 8rlando Ana 59iapno ':( /)#udge 9iapno*0 and doc1eted as Civil Case "o 7&&- 8n ; 9eptember &%%:, #udge 9iapno rendered adecision, the dispositive portion of which readsecution without noticeand hearingD /40 abdication of official functionD and /70 gross misconduct

The Court, ' ( in its +ecision dated #uly -..., found #udge 9iapno guilty of gross ignorance of the law for declaring, in the dispositive portion, the immediate e>ecution of his decision The Court thus fined #udge

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn1

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

2/21

9iapno @:,... The Court also found 9heriff Lope! guilty of gross abuse of authority and fined him @:,... TheCourt forwarded the charge against Atty #oselino A 2iray to the 8ffice of the Bar Confidant for appropriate actionThe Court directed the 8ffice of the Court Administrator /)8CA*0 to institute the appropriate administrative caseagainst Corpu! who was not impleaded in A M "o MT#$%%$&&%% Thus, in the administrative complaint dated &.

August -..., the 8CA charged respondent Corpu! with Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority and GraveMisconduct

8n && 9eptember -..., the Court reEuired respondent Corpu! to comment on the administrative complaintagainst her

In her Comment dated &; 8ctober -..., Corpu! denies the charges against her Corpu! alleges that she never signed any court process or writ without instruction from her superior 9he claims that #udge 9iapno )angrily* told her to implement the decision as it already directed the issuance of a writ of e>ecution 9he feared that #udge 9iapnomight cite her for insubordination Corpu! admits that she issued the writ of e>ecution Fowever, Corpu! claims thatshe issued the writ with the 1nowledge of #udge 9iapno who instructed her to sign the writ Corpu! further claimsthat the stenographer had already typed the writ when it was presented to her for signature

The Court referred the administrative case against Corpu! to >ecutive #udge #oven 5 Costales /)Investigating#udge Costales*0 of the ?TC$3rdaneta, @angasinan, Branch 7:, for investigation, report and recommendation

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Judge

+uring the investigation, Corpu! admitted that there were several instances when she issued writs of e>ecutionimmediately after #udge 9iapno promulgated the decisions Corpu! admitted that there were three e6ectment cases

Civil Cases "os 7..;, 7..%, and 7&-7 $ wherein the decisions and the writs of e>ecution were signed,promulgated and issued on the same dates but no one complained Investigating #udge Costales deduced that#udge 9iapno did not force or coerce Corpu! into signing the writ of e>ecution previously prepared by thestenographer There was no reason for #udge 9iapno to force or coerce Corpu! into signing the writ of e>ecutionbecause this was their practice as shown by the three e6ectment cases Corpu! mentioned

Investigating #udge Costales observed that Corpu! too1 literally what #udge 9iapno declared in his +ecision of

; 9eptember &%%: that )'I(n accordance with the ?ules, let a rit of >ecution be issued * Investigating #udgeCostales believed that as second in command in the office, Corpu! should have guided or assisted her presiding

6udge Investigating #udge Costales opined that Corpu! should have read the rules and procedure regarding theissuance of a writ of e>ecution and could not simply reason out that she was doing a ministerial duty Granting thatCorpu! was only a commerce graduate, Investigating #udge Costales believed that Corpu! should have ta1en her position seriously by reading the basic laws to guide her wor1 Investigating #udge Costales recommended thatCorpu! be fined @-,...

OCAs Report and Recommendation

The 8CA agrees with the findings and recommendation of Investigating #udge Costales The 8CA opines thatthe acts of signing and issuing a writ of e>ecution without a motion for e>ecution or a hearing prior to the issuance of the writ indicate irresponsibility and incompetence Faving been a cler1 of court for years, Corpu! should have beenconversant with the specific reEuirements of the ?ules of Court on the signing and issuance of the writ of e>ecution9he occupies a very sensitive position that reEuires competence and efficiency to insure the public=s confidence inthe administration of 6ustice The 8CA li1ewise agrees with the recommendation of Investigating #udge Costales thatCorpu! be fined @-,... for gross ignorance of the rules, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely

The Courts Ruling

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

3/21

e agree with the conclusions and recommendation of the 8CA and Investigating #udge Costales

There is no dispute that Lu=s counsel received the MTC decision on &4 9eptember &%%: and filed a notice of appeal on the same day Corpu! issued the writ of e>ecution on && 9eptember &%%: 9heriff Lope! implemented thewrit on the same day In short, Corpu! issued the writ, and 9heriff Lope! implemented the same, at least two daysbefore Lu=s counsel received the MTC decision Clearly, this is an improper procedure because the cler1 of court

issued the writ of e>ecution before the losing party received the decision As held in Felongco v. Dictado ,'%( reiterating the earlier case of D v. Court of Appeals ,'&.( the losing party must first receive notice of the 6udgmentbefore the court or its personnel can e>ecute the 6udgment The reason is that if such 6udgment is immediatelye>ecuted without prior notice to the losing party, then such a party has no remedy if the evidence or law does notsupport the 6udgment

Moreover, even if the MTC decision itself ordered that )a writ of e>ecution be issued,* this does not mean thatnotice of the motion for e>ecution to the adverse party is unnecessary '&&( The court cannot direct the issuance of awrit of e>ecution otu proprio This is what 9ection of ?ule ;. '&-( providesecution

As cler1 of court, Corpu! occupies a very sensitive position that reEuires competence and efficiency to insurethe public=s confidence in the administration of 6ustice A cler1 of court is a role model for other court employees toemulate in the performance of duties as well as in the conduct and behavior of a public servant A cler1 of courtcannot err without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient administration of 6ustice '&:( Corpu! failed to meetthese standards

In his ?eport, 5indings and ?ecommendation dated -4 8ctober -..&, Investigating #udge Costales stated thatCorpu! )is already 7 years old and soon she will be on compulsory retirement * '& ( The 8CA confirmed that Corpu!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_p_00_1418.htm#_ftn16

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

4/21

compulsorily retired on : May -..- but her retirement benefits were withheld because of pending administrativecases

)HEREFORE , we find the recommendations of Investigating #udge #oven 5 Costales and the 8ffice of theCourt Administrator well$ta1en ?espondent Celestina B Corpu! is 5I" + Two Thousand @esos /@-,...0 for grossignorance of the ?ules of Court and abuse of authority This fine shall be deducted from her retirement benefits

ELENITA I. BALA*ONDA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS +FIRST DIVISION #n% MARICEL S.FRANCISCO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TIN-A, J.#

hether or not the Commission on lections has power to order the immediate e>ecution of its 6udgment or final order involving a disputed barangay chairmanship is at the heart of the present Petition #or Certiorari '&( under ?ule : of the &%%; ?ules of Civil @rocedure

8n & #uly -..-, petitioner lenita I Bala6onda /Bala6onda0 was proclaimed as the duly elected BarangayChairman / Punong 'aranga* 0, having won the office in the barangay elections held the previous day '-( Fer margin of victory over private respondent Maricel 5rancisco /5rancisco0 was four$hundred twenty /7-.0 votes '4( 5rancisco dulyfiled a petition for election protest, within ten /&.0 days from the date of proclamation, lodged with the MetropolitanTrial Court /MeTC0 of Hue!on City, Branch 4: '7(

In answer to the protest, Bala6onda alleged that 5rancisco=s petition stated no cause of action and that theallegations of electoral fraud and irregularities were )baseless, con6ectural, flimsy, frivolous, preposterous and merefigments of the latter=s wild imagination * 9he also laid stress on the fact that although the grounds relied upon by5rancisco were violations of election laws, not a single person had been prosecuted for violation of the same ':(

After the issues were 6oined, the MeTC ordered the revision of ballots in si>ty$nine / %0 ballot bo>es, andeventually, the ballots in thirty$nine /4%0 precincts were revised ' ( After trial, MeTC dismissed the protest with itsfinding that Bala6onda still led 5rancisco by four hundred eighteen /7& 0 votes

acts:

.;J& J.- @etitioner was proclaimed asthe duly elected Barangay Chairman havingwon in theelections held the previous day Fer margin of victory over private respondent5rancisco was 7-. votes 5ranciscoduly filed a petition for election protest, within &. daysfrom the date of proclamation in the MeTC of Hue!on City

I n a n s w e r , B a l a 6 o n d a a l l e g e d t h a t 5rancisco=s petition stated no cause of actionand that theallegations of electoral fraudandi r r e gu l a ri t i es w e r e K b a s el e s s, c o n 6e c t u ra l , f l i m s y, f r i v o l o u s , p r e p o s t e r o u s a n d m e r e f igments of the latter=s wild imagination K 9healso stressed that although the grounds reliedupon by 5rancisco were

violations of electionl a w s , n o t a s i n g l e p e r s o n h a d b e e n prosecuted for violationof the same

MeTC:+ismissed the protest with i tsfinding that Bala6onda st i l l led 5rancisco by7& votes

5rancisco appealed the decision to theC8M L C

COMELEC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/166032.htm#_ftn6

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

5/21

/.-J.-J.70< ?eversed the MeTC/grant ed a ppeal0 , f inding that 5rancis co wo nover Bala6ond a b y &&& votes Itannulledthep r o c la m a t io n of B al a 6 on d a , a n d d e c la r e d 5 r a n c i s c o a s t h e d u l y e l e c t e d B a r a n ga y Chairman It ordered Bala6onda to vacate infavor of 5ran cisc o a nd to ceas e a nd desi stfromperforming the functions of the office

B a l a 6 o n d a f i l e d a M o t i o n f o r ?econsideration while 5rancisco filed a

Motionfor >ecution /.-J.:J.70, praying for a writ of e>ec utio n in accordance with 9ec -/a0,?ule4% of the ?8C, whic h allo ws disc ret iona rye>ecution of 6udgment upon good reasons tobestated in the order

Bala6onda opposed the motion, arguing inthe ma in that under 9 ec -/ a0, ?ul e 4%, on ly th e 6u dg me nt or f in alo rd er of a t ri al cou rt may be the sub6ect of discretionary e>ecutionpending appeal

COMELEC/&&J- J.70:Granted themotiona n d d i r e c t e d t h e i s s u a n c e o f a r i t o f >ecution, ordering Bala6onda to ceaseanddesist from discharging her functions asBarangay Chairman and relinEuish said officeto5rancisco 5rancisco ordered to post a bondof @:. ,.. . whic h sha ll answer forwhateverdamage Bala6onda will sustain by reason of such e>ec utio n if the fin al reso luti on oftheprotest would decide that he is not entitledthereto 8rder immediately e>ecutory

Fence this petitionIssue:

h e t h e r o r n o t t h e C 8 M L C h a s t h e p o w er to o r de r t h eimmed ia t e e>ecu t ion o f i t s 6u dg me n t o r f i na l o r de r i n vo lv in g a d i sp u t ed barangay chairmanshipHeld/Ratio: es

Batul v Bayron /-..40:

Affirmed a similarorder of the C8M L C 5irst +ivision directingthe immediate e>ecution of its own 6udgment +esp it ethe silence of the C8M L C ?ules of @rocedure as to the procedure of the issuanceof a writ of e>ecutionpending appeal, there isno reason to dispute the C8M L C=s authorityt o d o s o , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h esuppletory application of the ROCis e>pressly authori!edby 9ec &, ?ule 7& of the C8M L C ?ulesof @rocedure which provides tha t absent anyappl icable provis ions there in the per t inentprovis ions of the ?8C shal l be appl icable byanalogy or in a supple tory character andeffec t

Fowever, Batul is different from this casein th at in Ba tul the dec isi on su b6e ct of th eorder of immediate e>ecutionwas renderedby the poll body in the e>ercise of its original 6urisdiction while the decision in this casewasprom ulga ted in the e>er cise of its appe llat e 6urisdiction 9till, there is no reasonto disposeo f t h is pe t it i on in a m a nn e r d i ff e re n t f r om B a t u l T h e p u b l i c p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g th esuppletory application

of 9ec -/a0, ?ule 4% ist o o b v i a t e a h o l l o w v i c t o r y f o r t h e d u l y elected candidate as determinedby either thecourts or the C8M L C Towards that end,weh a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y e m p l o y e d l i b e r a l construction of procedural rules in electioncases to the end that the will of the people int h e c h o i c e o f p u b l i c o f f i c e r s m a y n o t b e defeated bymere technical ob6ections

In th e in s t an t ca se , th e go od re as on s enuncia ted in ?amas v Comelec / - 9C?A& %0, to wit pire dterm is too short that to further prolong thetenure ofthe pr otest ee is a vir tual denial of the r ight o f the protes tant, the du ly ele cted barangay captain, to assumeoffice

Considering that there are good reasonsfor the issuance of an 8rder of >ecution, towit< dictates of publicpolicy and the shortnesso f t h e r e m a i n i n g p e r i o d , t h e m o t i o n i s granted 8 nc e m or e, B at ulinstructs that the filing o f a m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e C8M L C=s resolution

with the C8M L C enbanc does not suspend the e>ecution thereofEDUARDO *ALANDONI +De!e#$e% , Su $t tute% & RO-ELIA R. *ALANDONI, BRENDA R. TA/A-, ARTHUR*ALANDONI, DEANNA *. FELICIANO #n% SUSAN R. *ALANDONI, petitioners,vsPHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN0 #n% COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NE-ROS OCCIDENTAL, S l#& C t& Br#n!1I, respondents

A2UINO, J.#

May the 6udgment debtorNs land, which was levied upon within five years from the entry of 6udgment, be sold at ane>ecution sale after the e>piration of the ten$year period for enforcing the 6udgment That legal issue arises under thefollowing factsecutory ithin five years from the entry of 6udgment in that case, or on March%,+ ( , the sheriff of 9ilay City, pursuant to an alias writ of e>ecution, levied upon Lot "o :;$C of the 9ilaycadastre, with an area of seventeen hectares, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title "o T$& -;, which was latercancelled and replaced in &% % by Transfer Certificate of Title "o T$4-.- in the name of duardo #alandoni

The levy was annotated on TCT "o T$& -; and TCT "o 4-.- in this mannerecution sale had been held and, therefore, the levy had become inefficacious and was a cloud on his title /CivilCase "o :0

The ban1 answered the complaint After a pre$trial and the submission of memoranda, the trial court rendered a

decision dated #une &:, &%;; dismissing the complaint The heirs of #alandoni /he died on #anuary -., &%;;0appealed to this Court under ?epublic Act "o :77.

It should be borne in mind that an action upon a 6udgment must be brought within ten years from the time the right ofaction accrues /Art &&77, Civil Code0 As clarified in the ?ules of Court, that prescriptive period means that Ka

6udgment may be e>ecuted on motion within five /:0 years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes finaland e>ecutoryK and Kafter the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a 6udgment maybe enforced by actionK /9ec , ?ule 4%0

The #alandoni heirs, in support of their contention that the levy cannot be enforced after the e>piration in &% % of theten$year period for enforcing the 6udgment, rely on the rule laid down in Ansaldo vs 5idelity and 9urety Co of the @ I ,

@hil :7;, a &%:& case, that K properties levied upon 0* e3ecution ust 0e sold in pu0lic auction 4it"in t"e periodo# ten *ears during 4"ic" t"e 5udg ent can 0e en#orced 0* action K The reason for that rule is that an e>ecution isenforced /and therefore accomplished0 by levy and sale, not by levy alone

In the Ansaldo case, a writ of e>ecution was issued by the Court of 5irst Instance of Manila on April &&, &%44 and anotice of levy was annotated on April &;, &%44 on the Torrens titles covering the lots of the 6udgment debtor, Angel A

Ansaldo "o other step was ta1en by the 6udgment creditor on the writ of e>ecution and levy

More t"an #ourteen *ears later , or on #uly 4., &%7;, #ose Ma Ansaldo, the heir of the 6udgment debtor, filed a petitionwith the Court of 5irst Instance of Manila for the cancellation of the levy in view of the inaction of the 6udgmentcreditor The latter opposed the petition

The lower court granted it on the ground that the 6udgment creditorNs right to enforce the 6udgment by e>ecution hadprescribed This Court affirmed the lower courtNs order cancelling the levy annotated on AnsaldoNs titles

In passing, this Court noted that, although it was ruled in 6overn ent o# t"e P"ilippines vs. /c"aus , ;& @hil 4& thatif Nthere is a valid levy within the period prescribed by law, the e>ecution sale may be enforced thereafter, thee>ecution sale in that case too1 place 4it"in t"e ten-*ear period #ro t"e entr* o# 5udg ent.

In the chaus case, the 6udgment was rendered in &%4-, the writ of e>ecution was issued and the levy was made in&%47, and the e>ecution sale was held in &%4% or within the ten$year period

8n the other hand, in this case the trial court and the ban1 hold the view that the e>ecution sale can be made beyondthe ten$year period for enforcing the 6udgment as long as the levy was effected within five years from the entry of

6udgment as in the instant case

They rely on the dictum that while section of ?ule 4% Klimits the time within which a writ of e>ecution may be issuedto enforce a 6udgment, it does not prescribe a period when the sale at public auction by the sheriff shall ta1e placeafter the issuance of the writ of e>ecution and a valid levy made pursuant theretoK /+el ?osario vs atco, L$& ;4:,+ecember -%, &% , & 9C?A &- 40 That dictum was based on the following ruling, also cited in the /c"aus case7

The levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the satisfaction of the 6udgmentand ta1en into the custody of the law, and after it has been ta1en from the defendant, his interestis limited to its application to the 6udgment, irrespective of the time when it may be sold /9outhernCal Lumber Co vs Fotel Co , %7 C -&;, - American 9tate ?eports &&:0

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

8/21

In the decision in the Sout"ern Cali#ornia Lu 0er case, the phrase Kirrespective of the time when it may be soldKmeans that after a levy has been made, the property levied upon may be sold even after the si>ty$day period, whichis the term of the writ of e>ecution, but that phrase does not mean that the e>ecution sale could be held beyond theten$year period for enforcing the 6udgment

In the Del &osario case, the 6udgment was rendered in &%::, the writ of e>ecution was issued in &%: and a levy was

made on the land of the 6udgment debtor, "arciso del ?osario, which levy was annotated on his title and wasrecorded in the registry of deeds "o e>ecution sale was held

In &% &, +el ?osario and the persons to whom he had mortgaged the land levied upon filed in court a petition tocancel the levy on the ground that more than five years had already elapsed since the levy was made and no auctionsale had been held +el ?osario contended that the 6udgment creditorNs remedy was to file an action to revive the

6udgment

The trial court did not grant the petition It ordered the 6udgment creditor to ta1e steps that the land levied upon besold at an e>ecution sale within si>ty days This Court affirmed that order of the trial court It should be noted that thesaid e>ecution sale would ta1e place within the ten$year prescriptive period for enforcing the 6udgment

In the +el ?osario case, this Court cited the case of 8uia 0ao vs. Manila Motor Co., $nc , &&4 @hil 74&, whichreaffirmed the rule in the Ansaldo case that K a valid e3ecution issued and lev* ade 4it"in t"e #ive-*ear period a#terentr* o# t"e 5udg ent a* 0e en#orced 0* sale o# t"e propert* levied upon t"erea#ter, provided t"e sale is ade4it"in ten *ears a#ter t"e entr* o# t"e 5udg ent K

e hold that the trial court erred in not applying the ruling in the Ansaldo case which is on all fours with this case

The employees of the ban1 were negligent They did not reEuire the sheriff to sell #alandoniNs land at public auctionThe ban1 is bound by its employeesN negligence This case should teach the responsible officers of the ban1 to bemore vigilant in e>ercising its rights and in supervising its employees The law helps the diligent and vigilant, notthose who sleep on their rights

5or laches and neglect on the part of those, who, under the law are entitled to reEuire of others thefulfillment of their obligations, the statute of limitations has been enacted, which provides that suchrights prescribe after a certain period of time, in order that it may serve ali1e as a punishment forthose who do not 1now how to loo1 after their own interests, and as a source of reassurance tothose who may have rested in the belief that their creditors had waived their rights, and also toinsure economic stability and the certainty of rights /2illareal, # , in Lutero vs 9iuliong P Co , :7@hil -;-, - . 0

e find that the Knotice of embargoK annotated in &% 7 on #alandoniNs title is no longer enforceable and has becomea cloud upon his title 5ollowing the rule in the Ansaldo case, he and his heirs have a good cause of action underarticle 7; of the Civil Code for the removal of that state encumbrance

Moreover, article 7; of the Civil Code provides that Kthere may also be an action to Euiet title or remove a cloud

therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been e>tinguished or has terminated, or has beenbarred by e>tinctive prescriptionK /9ee sec &&- of Act "o 7% 0

A court of eEuity will remove a cloud cast upon title to property by a lien, interest, or t itle which hasbecome barred by reason of laches or the running of the statute of limitations

Liens which were acEuired by virtue of 6udgments or levies of e>ecution, and which have becomebarred by limitations or by delay in enforcing them, and sales based on such hens, have been heldto be removable as clouds / : Am #ur -nd & 4$& 70

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

9/21

F ? 58? , the trial courtNs decision is reversed and set aside The register of deeds of 9ilay City is directed tocancel the K"otice of mbargoK annotated on #alandoniNs title, TCT "o T$4-.-, covering Lot "o :;$C of the 9ilaycadastre "o costs

Fiestan vs. Court of Appeals, and Developmentt Bank of the Philippines185 SCRA 51

!a" 1##$

FAC%S&

For failure of petitioner spouses Dionisio Fiestan and 'uanita Ar(onada )spouses Fiestan* to pa" theirmort+a+e inde tedness to respondent Development Bank of the Philippines )DBP*, the latter -as a leto a( uire at a pu li( au(tion sale on Au+ust /, 1# # the par(el of land )0ot o. 23B (overed " %C% o.

%314218* that the spouses Fiestan o-ned in lo(os Sur after e6tra7udi(ial fore(losure of said propert". %he Provin(ial Sheri issued a (erti9(ate of sale that same da" -hi(h -as re+istered on Septem er 28in the :;(e of the Re+ister of Deeds of lo(os Sur. s dul" e6e(uted a;davit of (onsolidation of o-nership.

:n April 14, 1#82, the DBP sold the lot to Fran(is(o Peria, so the Re+ister of Deeds of lo(os Sur(an(elled DBP>s title over said propert" and issued %C% o. %31#22# to Peria>s name, -ho later se(ureda ta6 de(laration for said lot and a((ordin+l" paid the ta6es due thereon. ?e thereafter mort+a+ed saidlot to the P B3@i+an Bran(h as se(urit" for his loan of P115,$$$.$$. Sin(e the spouses Fiestan -ere stillin possession of the propert", the Provin(ial Sheri ordered them to va(ate the premises, ut insteadof leavin+, the" 9led a (omplaint in the R%C of @i+an, lo(os Sur for annulment of sale, mort+a+e and(an(ellation of transfer (erti9(ates of title a+ainst the DBP30aoa+ Cit", P B3@i+an Bran(h, lo(os Sur,Fran(is(o Peria and the Re+ister of Deeds of lo(os Sur.

%he lo-er (ourt dismissed said (omplaint, de(larin+ valid the e6tra7udi(ial fore(losure sale of themort+a+ed propert" in favor of the DBP and its su se uent sale to Fran(is(o Peria as -ell as the realestate mort+a+e (onstituted in favor of P B3@i+an. %he Court of Appeals like-ise a;rmed saidde(ision. %he spouses Fiestan herein seek to annul the e6tra7udi(ial fore(losure sale of the mort+a+edpropert" on the +round that the Provin(ial Sheri (ondu(ted the fore(losure -ithout 9rst e e(tin+ alev" on said propert" efore sellin+ the same at the pu li( au(tion sale.

SS

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

10/21

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

11/21

(omplainant dis(overed that defendants o-ned real properties, as eviden(ed " the real propert" 9eldappraisal and assessment sheet.

ssue& =hether or not the sheri is ri+ht in not lev"in+ the properties of the 7ud+ment de tor.

?eld& %he respondent sheri did not kno- his duties and fun(tions under Se(tion #, Rule 4# of theRevised Rules of Court -hi(h (learl" states ho- the e6e(ution of mone" 7ud+ments should emade& Se(tion #. cept a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall ta1e effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operateonly as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the ?egister of +eeds to ma1e registration KThe act of registrationshall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as thirdpersons are concerned, and in all cases under this+ecree, the registration shall be made in theoffice of the ?egister of +eeds for the province or city where the land lies KThepurchaser /Campillo0 in the e>ecution sale of the registered land in suit, acEuires such rightand interest as appears inthe certificate of title unaffected by prior lien or encumbrances notnoted therein This must be so in order to preserve theefficacy and conclusiveness of thecertificate of title which is sanctified under our Torrens system of land registration

-.R. No. ;4>3

THE MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., petitioner,vsHON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SPS. OSCAR C. VENTANILLA AND CARMEN -LORIA DIAZ, respondents

Ta0alingcos 9 Associates La4 O##ice #or petitioner.

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

12/21

Oscar C. %entanilla, Jr. and Augusto 6ar aitan #or private respondents.

CRUZ, J.#

The present petition is an offshoot of our decision in Manila &e nant Co., $nc., :M&C$; v. Court o# Appeals ,promulgated on "ovember --, &%%.

That case involved parcels of land in Hue!on City which were owned by petitioner M?CI and became the sub6ect ofits agreement with A 3 2alencia and Co , Inc , /A32CI0 by virtue of which the latter was to act as the petitionerNsagent in the development and sale of the property 5or a stipulated fee, A32CI was to convert the lands into asubdivision, manage the sale of the lots, e>ecute contracts and issue official receipts to the lot buyers At the time ofthe agreement, the president of both M?CI and A32CI was Artemio 3 2alencia

@ursuant to the above agreement, A32CI e>ecuted two contracts to sell dated March 4, &%;., covering Lots & and -,Bloc1 &;, in favor of spouses 8scar C 2entanilla and Carmen Gloria +ia! for the combined contract price of@ ,:;& .., payable monthly in ten years After ten days and without the 1nowledge of the 2entanilla couple,

2alencia, as president of M?CI, resold the same parcels to Carlos Crisostomo, one of his sales agents, without anyconsideration 3pon orders of 2alencia, the monthly payments of the 2entanillas were remitted to the M?CI aspayments of Crisostomo, for which receipts were issued in his name The receipts were 1ept by 2alencia without the1nowledge of the 2entanillas and Crisostomo The 2entanillas continued paying their monthly installments

8n May 4., &%;4, M?CI informed A32CI that it was terminating their agreement because of discrepanciesdiscovered in the latterNs collections and remittances 8n #une , &%;4, 2alencia was removed by the board ofdirectors of M?CI as its president

8n "ovember -&, &%; , the 2entanilla spouses, having learned of the supposed sale of their lots to Crisostomo,commenced an action for specific performance, annulment of deeds, and damages against Manila ?emnant Co ,Inc , A 3 2alencia and Co , Inc , and Carlos Crisostomo It was doc1eted as Civil Case "o - 7&& in the Court of5irst Instance of Hue!on City, Branch;$B

8n "ovember &;, &% ., the trial court rendered a decision declaring the contracts to sell in favor of the 2entanillasvalid and subsisting, and annulling the contract to sell in favor of Crisostomo It ordered the M?CI to e>ecute anabsolute deed of sale in favor of the 2entanillas, free from all liens and encumbrances +amages and attorneyNs feesin the total amount of @-&.,... .. were also awarded to the 2entanillas for which the M?CI, A32CI, and Crisostomowere held solidarily liable

The lower court ruled further that if for any reason the transfer of the lots could not be effected, the defendants wouldbe solidarily liable to the 2entanillas for reimbursement of the sum of @;4,&-- 4:, representing the amount paid forthe two lots, and legal interest thereon from March &%;., plus the decreed damages and attorneyNs fees 2alenciawas also held liable to M?CI for moral and e>emplary damages and attorneyNs fees

5rom this decision, separate appeals were filed by 2alencia and M?CI The appellate court, however, sustained thetrial court in toto

M?CI then filed before this Court a petition for certiorari to review the portion of the decision of the Court of Appealsupholding the solidary liability of M?CI, A32CI and Carlos Crisostomo for the payment of moral and e>emplarydamages and attorneyNs fees to the 2entanillas

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

13/21

8n "ovember --, &%%., this Court affirmed the decision by the Court of Appeals and declared the 6udgment of thetrial court immediately e>ecutory

T"e Present Case

8n #anuary -:, &%%&, the spouses 2entanilla filed with the trial court a motion for the issuance of a writ of e>ecution

in Civil Case "o - 7&& The writ was issued on May 4, &%%&, and served upon M?CI on May %, &%%&

In a manifestation and motion filed by M?CI with the trial court on May -7, &%%&, the petitioner alleged that thesub6ect properties could not be delivered to the 2entanillas because they had already been sold to 9amuel MarEue!on 5ebruary ;, &%%., while their petition was pending in this Court "evertheless, M?CI offered to reimburse theamount paid by the respondents, including legal interest plus the aforestated damages M?CI also prayed that itstender of payment be accepted and all garnishments on their accounts lifted

The 2entanillas accepted the amount of @-&.,... .. as damages and attorneyNs fees but opposed thereimbursement offered by M?CI in lieu of the e>ecution of the absolute deed of sale They contended that the allegedsale to 9amuel MarEue! was void, fraudulent, and in contempt of court and that no claim of ownership over theproperties in Euestion had ever been made by MarEue!

8n #uly &%, &%%&, #udge lsie Ligot$Telan issued the following orderecution of the 6udgment 5urthermore, the cash bond fi>ed by the trial court for the lifting of thegarnishment was fair and reasonable because the value of the lot in Euestion had increased considerably Theappellate court also set aside the show$cause order and held that the trial court should have proceeded under9ection &., ?ule 4% of the ?ules of Court and not 9ection % thereof ;

In the petition now before us, it is submitted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed certain reversibleerrors to the pre6udice of M?CI

The petitioner contends that the trial court may not enforce it garnishment order after the monetary 6udgment fordamages had already been satisfied and the amount for reimbursement had already been deposited with the sheriffGarnishment as a remedy is intended to secure the payment of a 6udgment debt when a well$founded belief e>iststhat the erring party will abscond or deliberately render the e>ecution of the 6udgment nugatory As there is no suchsituation in this case, there is no need for a garnishment order

It is also averred that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it arbitrarily fi>ed the amount of the cash bondfor the lifting of the garnishment order at @:..,... ..

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

14/21

M?CI further maintains that the sale to 9amuel MarEue! was valid and constitutes a legal impediment to thee>ecution of the absolute deed of sale to the 2entanillas At the time of the sale to MarEue!, the issue of the validity of the sale to the 2entanillas had not yet been resolved 5urthermore, there was no specific in6unction against thepetitioner re$selling the property

Lastly, the petitioner insists that MarEue! was a buyer in good faith and had a right to rely on the recitals in the

certificate of title The sub6ect matter of the controversy having passed to an innocent purchaser for value, therespondent court erred in ordering the e>ecution of the absolute deed of sale in favor of the 2entanillas

5or their part, the respondents argue that the validity of the sale to them had already been established even while theprevious petition was still pending resolution That petition only Euestioned the solidary liability of M?CI to the2entanillas The portion of the decision ordering the M?CI to e>ecute an absolute deed of sale in favor of the2entanillas became final and e>ecutory when the petitioner failed to appeal it to the 9upreme Court There was noneed then for an order en6oining the petitioner from re$selling the property in litigation

They also point to the unusual lac1 of interest of MarEue! in protecting and asserting his right to the disputedproperty, a clear indication that the alleged sale to him was merely a ploy of the petitioner to evade the e>ecution ofthe absolute deed of sale in their favor

The petition must fail

The validity of the contract to sell in favor of the 2entanilla spouses is not disputed by the parties ven in theprevious petition, the recognition of that contract was not assigned as error of either the trial court or appellate courtThe fact that the M?CI did not Euestion the legality of the award for damages to the 2entanillas also shows that iteven then already ac1nowledged the validity of the contract to sell in favor of the private respondents

8n top of all this, there are other circumstances that cast suspicion on the validity, not to say the very e>istence, ofthe contract with MarEue!

5irst, the contract to sell in favor of MarEue! was entered into after the lapse of almost ten years from the rendition ofthe 6udgment of the trial court upholding the sale to the 2entanillas

9econd, the petitioner did not invo1e the contract with MarEue! during the hearing on the motion for the issuance ofthe writ of e>ecution filed by the private respondents It disclosed the contract only after the writ of e>ecution hadbeen served upon it

Third, in its manifestation and motion dated +ecember -&, &%%., the petitioner said it was ready to deliver the titles tothe 2entanillas provided that their counterclaims against private respondents were paid or offset first There was nomention of the contract to sell with MarEue! on 5ebruary ;, &%%.

5ourth, MarEue! has not intervened in any of these proceedings to assert and protect his rights to the sub6ectproperty as an alleged purchaser in good faith

At any rate, even if it be assumed that the contract to sell in favor of MarEue! is valid, it cannot prevail over the finaland e>ecutory 6udgment ordering M?CI to e>ecute an absolute deed of sale in favor of the 2entanillas "o lessimportantly, the records do not show that MarEue! has already paid the supposed balance amounting to @ & ,... ..of the original price of over @ ..,... .. =

The Court notes that the petitioner stands to benefit more from the supposed contract with MarEue! than from thecontract with the 2entanillas with the agreed price of only @ ,:;& .. ven if it paid the @-&.,... .. damages to theprivate respondents as decreed by the trial court, the petitioner would still earn more profit if the MarEue! contractwere to be sustained

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

15/21

e come now to the order of the trial court reEuiring the posting of the sum of @:..,... .. for the lifting of itsgarnishment order

hile the petitioners have readily complied with the order of the trial court for the payment of damages to the2entanillas, they have, however, refused to e>ecute the absolute deed of sale It was for the purpose of ensuring their compliance with this portion of the 6udgment that the trial court issued the garnishment order which by its term could

be lifted only upon the filling of a cash bond of @:..,... ..

The petitioner Euestions the propriety of this order on the ground that it has already partially complied with the 6udgment and that it has always e>pressed its willingness to reimburse the amount paid by the respondents It saysthat there is no need for a garnishment order because it is willing to reimburse the 2entanillas in lieu of e>ecution ofthe absolute deed of sale

The alternative 6udgment of reimbursement is applicable only if the conveyance of the lots is not possible, but it hasnot been shown that there is an obstacle to such conveyance As the main obligation of the petitioner is to e>ecutethe absolute deed of sale in favor of the 2entanillas, its un6ustified refusal to do so warranted the issuance of thegarnishment order

Garnishment is a species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the 6udgment debtor and owing to him froma stranger to the litigation 9 It is an attachment by means of which the plaintiff see1s to sub6ect to his claimproperty of the defendant in the hands of a third person or money owed by such third person or garnisheeto the defendant 3 The rules on attachment also apply to garnishment proceedings

A garnishment order shall be lifted if it established thatempt from e>ecution, hence e>empt from preliminaryattachment > or

/d0 the 6udgment is rendered against the attaching or garnishing creditor ;4

@artial e>ecution of the 6udgment is not included in the above enumeration of the legal grounds for the discharge of agarnishment order "either does the petitionerNs willingness to reimburse render the garnishment order unnecessary

As for the counterbond, the lower court did not err when it f i>ed the same at @:..,... .. As correctly pointed out bythe respondent court, that amount corresponds to the current fair mar1et value of the property in litigation and was areasonable basis for determining the amount of the counterbond

?egarding the refusal of the petitioner to e>ecute the absolute deed of sale, 9ection &. of ?ule 4% of the ?ules ofCourt reads as followsecute aconveyance of land, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act,and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at thecost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when sodone shall have li1e effect as if done by the party If real or personal property is within the@hilippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may enter 6udgment divesting the

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

16/21

title of any party and vesting it in others and such 6udgment shall have the force and effect of aconveyance e>ecuted in due form of law

Against the un6ustified refusal of the petitioner to accept payment of the balance of the contract price, the remedy ofthe respondents is consignation, conformably to the following provisions of the Civil Codeecuted in accordance with the reEuirements of the law

In sum, we find thatcess payment which they computed to be @: 4 million &. @7 44: million from @+C@, and @% :,... from 5 BTC The case, Civil Case"o %7$& &., was raffled to Branch &4- of the Ma1ati ?TC

8n May 4&, &%%:, Branch &4- of the Ma1ati ?TC rendered a decision && in Civil Case "o %7$& &. ordering @+C@ to pay petitioners the sumof @7 .4: million ,&- to bear interest at &-R per annum from April -:, &%%7 until fully paidD to e>ecute a release or cancellation of themortgages on the five parcels of land in Mati, +avao 8riental and on the pieces of machinery and eEuipment and to return the correspondingtitles to petitionersD and to pay the costs of the suit

As for the complaint of petitioners against respondent 5 BTC, the trial court dismissed it for lac1 of cause of action, ratiocinating that theM8A between petitioners and 5 BTC was not sub6ect to this CourtNs +ecision in G ? "o ;4&% , 5 BTC not being a party thereto

5rom the trial courtNs decision, petitioners and respondent @+C@ appealed to the Court of Appeals /CA0 The appeal was doc1eted as CA$G ? C2 "o :.:%&

8n May --, &%% , the CA rendered a decision &4 in CA$G ? C2 "o :.:%&, holding that petitionersN outstanding obligation, which this Courthad determined in G ? "o ;4&% to be @& 7 million, could not be increased or decreased by any act of the creditor @+C@

The CA held that when @+C@ assigned its receivables, the amount payable to it by +ATIC8? was the same amount payable to assignee

5 BTC, irrespective of any stipulation that @+C@ and 5 BTC might have provided in the +eed of Assignment, +ATIC8? not having been aparty thereto, hence, not bound by its terms

Citing Articles -&:7 &7 and -& 4 &: of the Civil Code which embody the principle of solutio inde0iti , the CA held that the party bound to refundthe e>cess payment of @: million & was 5 BTC as it received the overpaymentD and that 5 BTC could recover from @+C@ the amountof @7 .4: million representing its overpayment for the assigned receivables based on the terms of the +eed of Assignment or on the generalprinciple of eEuity

"oting, however, that +ATIC8? claimed in its complaint only the amount of @% :,... from 5 BTC, the CA held that it could not grant a relief different from or in e>cess of that prayed for

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt16

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

18/21

5inally, the CA held that the claim of @+C@ against +ATIC8? for the payment of @& 7 million had no basis, +ATIC8?Ns obligation havingalready been paid in full, overpaid in fact, when it paid assignee 5 BTC the amount of@ 7 million

Accordingly, the CA ordered @+C@ to e>ecute a release or cancellation of the mortgages it was holding over the Mati real properties and themachinery and eEuipment, and to return the corresponding certificates of title to petit ioners And it ordered 5 BTC to pay petitioners theamount of @% :,... with legal interest from the date of the promulgation of its 6udgment

5 BTCNs motion for reconsideration of the CA +ecision was denied, and so was its subseEuent appeal to this Court

8n April -:, -..., petitioners filed before the ?TC of Ma1ati a Complain t&; against 5 BTC to recover the balance of the e>cess paymentof @7 44: million & The case was doc1eted as Civil Case "o ..$:7., the precursor of the present case and raffled to Branch &74 of the?TC

In its Answer ,&% 5 BTC denied responsibility, it submitting that nowhere in the dispositive portion of the CA +ecision in CA$G ? C2 "o:.:%& was it held liable to return the whole amount of @: 74: million representing the consideration for the assignment to it of thereceivables, and since petitioners failed to claim the said whole amount in their original complaint in Civil Case "o %7$& &. as they weremerely claiming the amount of @% :,... from it, they were barred from claiming it

5 BTC later filed a Third @arty Complaint -. against @+C@ praying that the latter be made to pay the @% :,... and the interests ad6udged bythe CA in favor of petitioners, as well as the @ 7 44: million and interests that petitioners were claiming from it It posited that @+C@ should beheld liable because it received a consideration of @: 74: million when it assigned the receivables

Answering -& the Third @arty Complaint, @+C@ contended that since petitioners were not see1ing the recovery of the amount of @% :,..., thesame cannot be recovered via the third party complaint

@+C@ went on to contend that since the f inal and e>ecutory decision in CA$G ? C2 "o :.:%& had held that +ATIC8? has no cause ofaction against it for the refund of any part of the e>cess payment, 5 BTC can no longer re$litigate the same issue

Moreover, @+C@ contended that it was not privy to the M8A which e>plicitly e>cluded the receivables from the effect of the 9upreme Courtdecision, and that the amount of @ 7 million paid by petitioners to 5 BTC was clearly intended as consideration for the release andcancellation of the lien on the 8t is property

?eplying ,-- 5 BTC pointed out that @+C@ cannot deny that it benefited from the assignment of its r ights over the receivables frompetitioners It added that the third party claim being founded on a valid and 6ustified cause, @+C@Ns counterclaims lac1ed factual and legalbasis

@etitioners thereafter filed a Motion for 9ummary #udgmen t-4 to which 5 BTC filed its opposition -7

By 8rder of March :, -..&, the trial court denied the motion for summary 6udgment for lac1 of merit -:

8n #uly &., -..&, the trial court issued the assailed +ecision dismissing petitionersN complaint on the ground of res 5udicata and splitting ofcause of action It recalled that petitioners had filed Civil Case "o %7$& &. to recover the alleged overpayment both from @+C@ and 5 BTCand to secure the cancellation and release of their mortgages on real properties, machinery and eEuipmentD that when said case wasappealed, the CA, in its +ecision, ordered @+C@ to release and cancel the mortgages and 5 BTC to pay @% :,... with interest, which+ecision became final and e>ecutory on "ovember -4, &%%%D and that a "otice of 9atisfaction of #udgment between petitioners and 5 BTCwas in fact submitted on August , -..., hence, the issue between them was finally settled under the doctrine of res 6udicata

The trial court moreover noted that the M8A between petitioners and 5 BTC clearly stated that the Kpending litigation before the 9upremeCourt of the @hilippines with respect to the Loan e>clusive of the ?eceivablesassigned to 5 BTC shall prevail up to the e>tent not coveredby this Agreement K That statement in the M8A, the tr ial court ruled, categorically made only the loan sub6ect to this CourtNs +ecision in G ?"o ;4&% , hence, it was with the partiesN full 1nowledge and consent that petitioners agreed to pay @ 7 million to 5 BTC as considerationfor the settlement The parties cannot thus be allowed to welsh on their contractual obligations, the trial court concluded

?especting the third party claim of 5 BTC, the trial court held that 5 BTCNs payment of the amount of@&,--7,%. ; /@% :,... plusinterest0 to petitioners was in compliance with the final 6udgment of the CA, hence, it could not entertain such claim because the Complaintfiled by petitioners merely sought to recover from 5 BTC the alleged overpayment of @ 7 44: million and attorneyNs fees of @-..,...

@etitionersN motion for reconsideration - of the #uly &., -..& decision of the trial court was denied by 8rder of 9eptember -7, -..&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt26

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

19/21

Fence, the present petition

In their Memorandum ,-; petitioners proffer that, aside from the issue of whether their complaint is dismissible on the ground of res 5udicata and splitting of cause of action, the issues of &0 whether 5 BTC can be held liable for the balance of the overpayment of @7 44:million plus interest which petitioners previously claimed against @+C@ in Civil Case "o %7$& &., and -0 whether @+C@ can interpose asdefense the provision in the +eed of Assignment and the M8A that the assignment of the receivables shall not be affected by this CourtNs+ecision in G ? "o ;4&% , be considered

9tripped of the verbiage, the only issue for this CourtNs consideration is the propriety of the dismissal of Civil Case "o ..$:7. upon thegrounds stated by the trial court This should be so because a ?ule 7: petition, li1e the one at bar, can raise only Euestions of law /and that

6ustifies petitionersN elevation of the case from the trial court directly to this Court0 which must be distinctly set forth -

The petition is bereft of merit

9ection 7; of ?ule 4% of the ?ules of Court, on the doctrine of res 5udicata , reads > >

/b0 In other cases, the 6udgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly ad6udged or as to any other matter that couldhave been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subseEuent to thecommencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the samecapacityD and

/c0 In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been ad6udged in aformer 6udgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so ad6udged, or which was actually and necessarilyincluded therein or necessary thereto /3nderscoring supplied0

The above$Euoted provision lays down two main rules 9ection 7%/b0 enunciates the first rule of res 5udicata 1nown as Kbar by prior 6udgmentK or Kestoppel by 6udgment,K which states that the 6udgment or decree of a court of competent 6urisdiction on the merits concludesthe parties and their privies to the litigation and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before thesame or any other tribunal -%

9tated otherwise, Kbar by former 6udgmentK ma1es the 6udgment rendered in the first case an absolute bar to the subseEuent action sincethat 6udgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain i t but also as to any other matter which might havebeen offered for that purpose and which could have been ad6udged therein 4. It is in this concept that the term res 5udicata is more commonlyand generally used as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases 4&

The second rule of res 5udicata embodied in 9ection 7;/c0, ?ule 4% is Kconclusiveness of 6udgment K This rule provides that any right, fact, ormatter in issue directly ad6udicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a 6udgment ordecree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the 6udgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and theirprivies whether or not the claim or demand, purpose, or sub6ect matter of the two suits is the same 4- It refers to a situation where the

6udgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined or which were necessarily included therein 44

The case at bar satisfies the four essential reEuisites of Kbar by prior 6udgment,K vi!cess of what was due it in violation of their right to a refund The same facts and evidence presented in the first case, Civil Case "o %7$& &., were the very same facts and evidence that petitioners presented in Civil Case "o ..$:7.

Thus, the same +eed of Assignment between @+C@ and 5 BTC, the first and second supplements to the +eed, the M8A betweenpetitioners and 5 BTC, and this CourtNs +ecision in G ? "o ;4&% were submitted in Civil Case "o ..$:7.

"otably, the same facts were also pleaded by the parties in support of their allegations for, and defenses against, the recovery of the @ 7 44:million @etitioners, of course, plead the CA +ecision as basis for their subseEuent claim for the remainder of their overpayment It is wellestablished, however, that a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, or by pleading

6ustifiable circumstances as herein petitioners are doing, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shallnot be twice litigated 7.

In fact, authorities tend to widen rather than restrict the doctrine of res 6udicata on the ground that public as well as private interest demandsthe ending of suits by reEuiring the parties to sue once and for all in the same case all the special proceedings and remedies to which theyare entitled 7&

This Court finds well$ta1en then the pronouncement of the court a Euo that to allow the re$litigation of an issue that was finally settled asbetween petitioners and 5 BTC in the prior case is to allow the splitting of a cause of action, a ground for dismissal under 9ection 7 of ?ule- of the ?ules of Court readingist and upon which he reliesD he cannot be permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in successive actions to recoverfor the same wrong or in6ury 74

Clearly then, the 6udgment in Civil Case "o %7$& &. operated as a bar to Civil Case "o ..$:7., following the above$Euoted 9ection 7, ?ule- of the ?ules of Court

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150134_2007.html#fnt43

7/24/2019 CIVPROEND

21/21