Remedial Law Review Cases - Batch 3

8/13/2019 Remedial Law Review Cases - Batch 3

1/207

G.R. No. 138739 July 6, 2000

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMAN!, petitioner,vs."#ou$%$ &ICENTE '() MA. "*MILANG DEL RO"ARIO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ANGANI+AN,J.:

When a demurrer to evidence granted by a trial court is reversed on appeal, thereviewing court cannot remand the case or urther proceedings. !ather, it shouldrender "udgment on the basis o the evidence proered by the plainti. Inasmuch asdeendants in the present case admitted the due e#ecution o the $romissory Noteboth in their %nswer and during the pretrial, the appellate court should have rendered"udgment on the bases o that Note and on the other pieces o evidence adducedduring the trial.

&he Case

'eore us is a $etition or !eview on Certiorari o the December (, )((*Decision)and the +ay , )((( !esolution-o the Court o %ppeals in C%/! C0No. 1***. &he assailed Decision disposed as ollows2

3W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the appealed order 6dated November 1, )((17o the !egional &rial Court 6'ranch 8I07 in the City o +anila in Civil Case No. (99:;* is hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. s $artial +otion or !econsideration.1

&he 5acts

&he acts o this case are undisputed. On +arch -, )((), Spouses 0icente and +ariaSumilang del !osario 6herein respondents7, "ointly and severally e#ecuted, signedand delivered in avor o !adiowealth 5inance Company 6herein petitioner7, a$romissory Note:or $)?,(1?. $ertinent provisions o the $romissory Note read2

35O! 0%s andAorcollection ees, in case no legal action is iled, otherwise, the sum will be e=uivalentto twentyive 6-:7 percent o the amount due which shall not in any case be lessthan 5I0E 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$:;;.;;7 plus the cost o suit and other litigatione#penses and, in addition, a urther sum o ten per cent 6);7 o said amount whichin no case shall be less than 5I0E 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$:;;.;;7, as and orli=uidated damages.39

&hereater, respondents deaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeateddemands, they ailed to pay their obligations under their $romissory Note.

On une *, )((, petitioner iled a Complaint*or the collection o a sum o money

beore the !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch )1.?

During the trial, asmer5amatico, the credit and collection oicer o petitioner, presented in evidence therespondents> checF payments, the demand letter dated uly )-, )((), the customer>sledger card or the respondents, another demand letter and +etropolitan 'anFdishonor slips. 5amatico admitted that he did not have personal Fnowledge o thetransaction or the e#ecution o any o these pieces o documentary evidence, whichhad merely been endorsed to him.

On uly 1, )((1, the trial court issued an Order terminating the presentation oevidence or the petitioner.(&hus, the latter ormally oered its evidence ande#hibits and rested its case on uly :, )((1.

!espondents iled on uly -(, )((1 a Demurrer to Evidence);or alleged lacF ocause o action. On November 1, )((1, the trial court dismissed))the complaint or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt1


2/207

ailure o petitioner to substantiate its claims, the evidence it had presented beingmerely hearsay.

On appeal, the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 reversed the trial court and remanded the caseor urther proceedings.

4ence, this recourse.)-

!uling o the Court o %ppeals

%ccording to the appellate court, the "udicial admissions o respondents establishedtheir indebtedness to the petitioner, on the grounds that they admitted the duee#ecution o the $romissory Note, and that their only deense was the absence o anagreement on when the installment payments were to begin. Indeed, during thepretrial, they admitted the genuineness not only o the $romissory Note, but also othe demand letter dated uly )-, )((). Even i the petitioner>s witness had nopersonal Fnowledge o these documents, they would still be admissible 3i thepurpose or which Gthey areH produced is merely to establish the act that thestatement or document was in act made or to show its tenorG,H and such act or tenoris o independent relevance.3

'esides, %rticles )( and -- o the Civil Code re=uire that every person must in thee#ercise o rights and in the perormance o duties act with "ustice, give all elsetheir due, and observe honesty and good aith. 5urther, the rules on evidence are tobe liberally construed in order to promote their ob"ective and to assist the parties inobtaining "ust, speedy and ine#pensive determination o an action.

Issue

&he petitioner raises this lone issue2

3&he 4onorable Court o %ppeals patently erred in ordering the remand o this caseto the trial court instead o rendering "udgment on the basis o petitioner>sevidence.3)

5or an orderly discussion, we shall divide the issue into two parts2 6a7 legal eect othe Demurrer to Evidence, and 6b7 the date when the obligation became due anddemandable.

&he Court>s !uling

&he $etition has merit. While the C% correctly reversed the trial court, it erred in

remanding the case 3or urther proceedings.3

Consequences of a Reversal, on Appeal, of a Demurrer to Evidence

$etitioner contends that i a demurrer to evidence is reversed on appeal, thedeendant should be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence, and theappellate court should render "udgment on the basis o the evidence submitted by theplainti. % remand to the trial court 3or urther proceedings3 would be an outrightdeiance o !ule , Section ) o the )((* !ules o Court.

On the other hand, respondents argue that the petitioner was not necessarily entitledto its claim, simply on the ground that they lost their right to present evidence insupport o their deense when the Demurrer to Evidence was reversed on appeal.&hey stress that the C% merely ound them indebted to petitioner, but was silent onwhen their obligation became due and demandable.

&he old !ule : o the !ules o Court was reworded under !ule o the )((*!ules, but the conse=uence on appeal o a demurrer to evidence was not changed. %samended, the pertinent provision o !ule reads as ollows2

3SEC&ION ).Demurrer to evidence.%ter the plainti has completed thepresentation o his evidence, the deendant may move or dismissal on the groundthat upon the acts and the law the plainti has shown no right to relie. I his motionis denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. I the motion is granted but onappeal the order o dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the rightto present evidence.3)1

E#plaining the conse=uence o a demurrer to evidence, the Court in 0illanueva&ransit v. avellana):pronounced2

3&he rationale behind the rule and doctrine is simple and logical. &he deendant ispermitted, without waiving his right to oer evidence in the event that his motion isnot granted, to move or a dismissal 6i.e., demur to the plainti>s evidence7 on the

ground that upon the acts as thus established and the applicable law, the plainti hasshown no right to relie. I the trial court denies the dismissal motion, i.e., inds thatplainti>s evidence is suicient or an award o "udgment in the absence o contraryevidence, the case still remains beore the trial court which should then proceed tohear and receive the deendant>s evidence so that all the acts and evidence o thecontending parties may be properly placed beore it or ad"udication as well as beorethe appellate courts, in case o appeal. Nothing is lost. &he doctrine is but in line withthe established procedural precepts in the conduct o trials that the trial courtliberally receive all proered evidence at the trial to enable it to render its decisionwith all possibly relevant proos in the record, thus assuring that the appellate courtsupon appeal have all the material beore them necessary to maFe a correct "udgment,and avoiding the need o remanding the case or retrial or reception o improperly

e#cluded evidence, with the possibility thereater o still another appeal, with all theconcomitant delays. &he rule, however, imposes the condition by the same toFen that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt15


3/207

i his demurrer is granted by the trial court, and the order o dismissal is reversed onappeal , the movant losses his right to present evidence in his behal and he shallhave been deemed to have elected to stand on the insuiciency o plainti>s case andevidence. In such event, the appellate court which reverses the order o dismissalshall proceed to render "udgment on the merits on the basis o plainti>s evidence.36@nderscoring supplied7

In other words, deendants who present a demurrer to the plainti>s evidence retain

the right to present their own evidence, i the trial court disagrees with them i thetrial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both othem and reverses the dismissal order, the deendants lose the right to present theirown evidence.)9&he appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the case and render"udgment on the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to discourage prolongedlitigations.)*

In the case at bar, the trial court, acting on respondents> demurrer to evidence,dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the plainti had adduced mere hearsayevidence. 4owever, on appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court because thegenuineness and the due e#ecution o the disputed pieces o evidence had in actbeen admitted by deendants.

%pplying !ule , Section ) o the )((* !ules o Court, the C% should haverendered "udgment on the basis o the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Whilethe appellate court correctly ruled that 3the documentary evidence submitted by theGpetitionerH should have been allowed and appreciated ###,3 and that 3the petitionerpresented =uite a number o documentary e#hibits ### enumerated in the appealedorder,3)?we agree with petitioner that the C% had suicient evidence on record todecide the collection suit. % remand is not only rowned upon by the !ules, it is alsologically unnecessary on the basis o the acts on record.

Due and Demandable Obligation

$etitioner claims that respondents are liable or the whole amount o their debt andthe interest thereon, ater they deaulted on the monthly installments.

!espondents, on the other hand, counter that the installments were not yet due anddemandable. $etitioner had allegedly allowed them to apply their promotion servicesor its inancing business as payment o the $romissory Note. &his was supposedlyevidenced by the blanF space let or the date on which the installments should havecommenced.)(In other words, respondents theoriJe that the action or immediateenorcement o their obligation is premature because its ulillment is dependent onthe sole will o the debtor. 4ence, they consider that the proper court should irst i#a period or payment, pursuant to %rticles ))?; and ))(* o the Civil Code.

&his contention is untenable. &he act o leaving blanF the due date o the irstinstallment did not necessarily mean that the debtors were allowed to pay as andwhen they could. I this was the intention o the parties, they should have soindicated in the $romissory Note. 4owever, it did not relect any such intention.

On the contrary, the Note e#pressly stipulated that the debt should be amortiJedmonthly in installments o$)),:*( or twelve consecutive months. While the speciicdate on which each installment would be due was let blanF, the Note clearly

provided that each installment should be payable each month.

5urthermore, it also provided or an acceleration clause and a late payment penalty,both o which showed the intention o the parties that the installments should be paidat a deinite date. 4ad they intended that the debtors could pay as and when theycould, there would have been no need or these two clauses.

0erily, the contemporaneous and subse=uent acts o the parties maniest theirintention and Fnowledge that the monthly installments would be due and demandableeach month.-;In this case, the conclusion that the installments had already becamedue and demandable is bolstered by the act that respondents started payinginstallments on the $romissory Note, even i the checFs were dishonored by their

drawee banF. We are convinced neither by their avowals that the obligation had notyet matured nor by their claim that a period or payment should be i#ed by a court.

Convincingly, petitioner has established not only a cause o action against therespondents, but also a due and demandable obligation. &he obligation o therespondents had matured and they clearly deaulted when their checFs bounced. $erthe acceleration clause, the whole debt became due one month 6%pril -, )(()7 aterthe date o the Note because the checF representing their irst installment bounced.

%s or the disputed documents submitted by the petitioner, the C% ruling in avor otheir admissibility, which was not challenged by the respondents, stands. % party

who did not appeal cannot obtain airmative relie other than that granted in theappealed decision.-)

It should be stressed that respondents do not contest the amount o the principalobligation.1p!i1&heir liability as e#pressly stated in the $romissory Note andound by the C% is 3$)G?H,(1?.;;--which is payable in twelve 6)-7 installmentsat $)),:*(.;; a month or twelve 6)-7 consecutive months.3 %s correctly ound bythe C%, the 3ambiguity3 in the $romissory Note is clearly attributable to humanerror.-

$etitioner, in its Complaint, prayed or 3)1 interest per annum rom +ay 9, )((until ully paid.3 We disagree.1p!i1&he Note already stipulated a late payment

penalty o -.: percent monthly to be added to each unpaid installment until ully
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jul2000/gr_138739_2000.html#fnt23


4/207

paid. $ayment o interest was not e#pressly stipulated in the Note. &hus, it should bedeemed included in such penalty.

In addition, the Note also provided that the debtors would be liable or attorney>sees e=uivalent to -: percent o the amount due in case a legal action was institutedand ); percent o the same amount as li=uidated damages. s ees, but only in a sum e=ual to );percent o the amount due which we deem reasonable under the proven acts.-:

&he Court deems it improper to discuss respondentsK claim or moral and otherdamages. Not having appealed the C% Decision, they are not entitled to airmativerelie, as already e#plained earlier.-9

W4E!E5O!E, the $etition is /!%N&ED. &he appealed Decision is +ODI5IED inthat the remand is SE& %SIDE and respondents are ordered &O $%B $)?,(1?, plus-.: percent penalty charge per month beginning %pril -, )(() until ully paid, and );percent o the amount due as attorney>s ees. No costs. SO O!DE!ED.

Foo(o%$)Rollo, pp. -;. $romulgated by the &hird Division composed o . !amon +abutas r., ponente Emerito C. Cui, Division chairman, and 4ilarion s 'rie beore the C%, p. 1 rollo, p. 1?.);Rollo, pp. *?.))Rollo, pp. 1;1).)-&his case was deemed submitted or decision upon receipt by this Court on %pril -?, -;;; o thepetitioner>s +emorandum, signed by %tty. %llan '. /epty o Singson 0aldeJ L %ssociates. !espondents>

+emorandum, signed by %tty. Eduardo 0. 'ringas o !omeo !. 'ringas L %ssociates, was receivedearlier, on %pril , -;;;.)+emorandum or the $etitioner, p. 1 rollo, p. (9. Original written in capital letters.)1In the old !ules, the same provision is worded in Section ) o !ule : as ollows23SEC&ION ).Effect of "udgment on demurrer to evidence.%ter the plainti has completed thepresentation o his evidence, the deendant without waiving his right to oer evidence in the event themotion is not granted, may move or a dismissal on the ground that upon the acts and the law the plaintihas shown no right to relie. 4owever, i the motion is granted and the order o dismissal is reversed onappeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behal.3): SC!% *::, *9)*9-, une ;, )(*;, per Maldivar, #.)9Siayngco v. Costibolo,-* SC!% -*-, -?1, 5ebruary -?, )(9( &ison v. Court o %ppeals, -*9 SC!%:?-, :((9;;, uly ), )((*.)*%tun v. NueJ, (* $hil. *9-, *9:, October -9, )(:: %rroyo v. %Jur, *9 $hil. 1(.)?C% Decision, pp. 1: rollo, pp. -9-*.)(!espondents> %nswer, p. ) rollo, p. :.-;%rticle )*) o the Civil Code provides that 3GiHn order to "udge the intention o the contracting parties,their contemporaneous and subse=uent acts shall be principally considered.3

-)


5/207

@nion. &heir horrible death was attributed to herein appellants, who, however,pleaded not guilty to the our separate inormations or murder.

%t the trial beore the !egional &rial Court o 'auang, s housewatching television with his aunt and young cousins when he sensed a commotionoutside. When !obert went out to see what was transpiring, he saw armed menrunning towards their house. One o them turned and pointed a gun at him,prompting him to scamper away and hide at the bacF o his uncle>s house. 5romwhere he was hiding, he noticed a stainless "eep, with blue rim and marFing 3ruitsand vegetables dealer,3 parFed in ront o the ence o their house. Standing behindthe "eep were three armed men wearing bonnets, with only their nose and eyese#posed. In the ne#t instant, he heard gunshots and then saw men running rom hishouse. &he men hurriedly boarded the "eep and let the place.-

&he "eep did not go unnoticed by the neighbors. !ussel &amba was with someriends in ront o !oda>s Store, around );; meters away rom the 'arnachearesidence, when the "eep passed by very slowly going towards the 'arnachearesidence. %ccording to him, the "eep had a marFing 3El Shaddai3 in ront, asiderom the marFing 3ruits and vegetables dealer3 on the sides.5rancisco %ndrada wasalso talFing with some people in ront o the Calumbaya 'arangay 4all, only ivemeters away rom !oda>s Store, when he noticed that "eep, with the 3El Shaddai3marFing, pass by.1Not long ater, both heard gunshots and later saw the "eep pass byagain, this time running very ast.:

&he incident was immediately reported to the police, and the description o the 3ElShaddai3 "eep used by the maleactors was relayed through radio to the policestations in the province o


6/207

suer our counts o the supreme penalty o death and 6b7 +ar=ueJ, s determination o the credibility o essie. Indeed, his testimony wasunwavering despite attempts o the deense counsels to conuse or trap him. &healleged inconsistency between essie>s sworn statement and testimony on the numbero maleactors, i at all, does not detract rom his credibility. &hat essie saw twoarmed men enter his house is clear. While the deense claims ambiguity as to thepresence o a third man, essie>s statement easily reveals that the third man was notimmediately mentioned because he 6the third man7 only ollowed the two and essiedid not see his ace.

It is also pointed out that essie>s identiication o Cachola and %may runs counter to!obert>s testimony that the armed men were wearing bonnets. %gain, rom theirtestimonies, it is apparent that the brothers saw dierent men. 'esides, !obert also

stated that one o the men did not have his head covered. %s to the allegedimprobability o the looFouts wearing bonnets while the principal shooters were


7/207

unmasFed, or o the maleactors sparing essie, suice it to say that suchcircumstances are not so incredible as to cast reasonable doubt on the truth o thenarrated events.

In sum, none o the alleged inconsistencies, minor as they are, could leave us withdoubt that essie was present in his house and saw armed men shoot his relatives.'arely two hours had passed since he witnessed the gruesome murders when essieidentiied appellants Cachola and %may as the maleactors. !easonably, the memory

o their aces was still resh on his mind. +oreover, essie identiied the twoappellants two times more at the police station and once in open court, and he neveraltered in his identiication.

Signiicantly, the appellants have not imputed any ill motive to essie or testiyingagainst Cachola and %may. Where there is no evidence to show a doubtul reason orimproper motive why a prosecution witness should testiy against the accused oralsely implicate him in a crime, the said testimony is trustworthy and should beaccorded ull aith and credit.-

In all, there does not appear on record to be 3some act or circumstance o weightand inluence which the trial court has overlooFed or the signiicance o which it has

misapprehended or misinterpreted. 3-1We rely, thereore, on the competence o thetrial court to decide the =uestion o credibility o the witnesses, having heard themand observed their deportment and manner o testiying during the trial.3-:

&he reliance by appellant Cachola on $eople v. &eehanFee-9is misplaced. In thatcase the negative result o the parain test did not preclude a inding o guilt by thetrial court, the reason being that the accused was tested or the presence o nitratesonly ater more than *- hours had lapsed rom the time o the shooting. In thepresent case, the parain test was conducted on the same night the shooting incidentoccurred hence, the lapse o only a ew hours increases its reliability. While thepresence o nitrates on accused>s hand is not conclusive o guilt, it bolsters thetestimony o an eyewitness that the accused ired a gun.

%s to whether the trial court erred in not allowing the appellants to present evidenceater iling their demurrer to evidence without leave o court, then Section ):, !ules))( o the !ules o Court-*is clear on the matter, thus2

SEC. ):. Demurrer to evidence. %ter the prosecution has rested its case,the court may dismiss the case on the ground o insuiciency o evidence26)7 on its own initiative ater giving the prosecution an opportunity to beheard or 6-7 on motion o the accused iled with prior leave o court.

I the court denies the motion or dismissal, the accused may adduce

evidence in his deense. When the accused iles such motion todismiss without e#press leave o court, he waives the right to present

evidence and submits the case or "udgment on the basis o the evidence orthe prosecution. 6@nderscoring supplied7.

&he iling by the appellants o a demurrer to evidence in the absence o prior leave ocourt was a clear waiver o their right to present their own evidence. &o sustain theirclaim that they had been denied due process because the evidence they belatedlysought to oer would have e#culpated them would be to allow them to 3wager on theoutcome o "udicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever

dictated by convenience.3-?

5urthermore, it cannot be said that the waiver was notclear. &he trial court postponed the hearings on the motion or demurrer, even aterleave o court had been denied, and then granted e#tensions to %may until he inallyadopted the position o his coappellants. %t no time other than in this automaticreview was there any attempt that is contrary to the waiver o the presentation oevidence.

Neither can the =uestion o the legality o the warrantless arrest o the appellants beraised or the irst time beore this Court. %s arrests all into the =uestion o thee#ercise by the trial court o its "urisdiction over the person o the accused, the=uestion should have been raised prior to their arraignment. &hat the appellantsob"ected to the arrests prior to the arraignment-(is unsubstantiated. &heir claim that

they re=uested an e#tension o time to ile a motion to =uash the inormation or todismiss the case,;which the trial court allegedly denied, cannot save the day orthem. &he act remains that beore arraignment, no such motion was iled. Evenassuming that their arrest was illegal, their act o entering a plea during theirarraignment constituted a waiver o their right to =uestion their arrest.)

We now discuss the circumstances that attended the commission o the crimes.

&he inormation alleges the =ualiying circumstances o treachery and evidentpremeditation. &here is no doubt that the Fillings were done with treachery,considering that the assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went on ashooting rampage. We have time and again ruled that when the attacF is sudden and

une#pected, there is treachery.-&he presence o even this single =ualiyingcircumstance is suicient to =ualiy the Filling to murder.

%s to the =ualiying circumstance o evident premeditation, we ind the samelacFing, or there is no evidence o planning or preparation to Fill, much less o thetime when the plot was conceived.1

It may not be amiss to mention that the death certiicate o 0ictorino s


8/207

moral suering. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereowas dismembered, ignominy cannot be taFen against the accused.:In this case, theinormation states that 0ictorino>s se#ual organ was severed ater he was shot andthere is no allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural eects o theact. We cannot, thereore, consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.

4owever, as regards Carmelita and 5eli#, r., we appreciate the aggravatingcircumstance o dwelling, since it was alleged in the inormation and proved during

the trial that they were Filled inside their house. %ppellants Cachola and %may,thereore, violated the sanctity o the said victims> home.

%rticle -1? o the !evised $enal Code provides that the penalty or murder isreclusion perpetua to death. In con"unction, %rticle 9 o the !evised $enal Codeprovides that when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, the greater penaltyshall be imposed when in the commission o the deed, there is present oneaggravating circumstance. In the cases o Carmelita and 5eli# r., in Criminal CasesNos. --1 and --:, there is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigatingcircumstance to oset it hence, the higher penalty o death imposed by the trialcourt stands.

&hree members o the Court maintain their adherence to the separate opinionse#pressed in $eople vs. Echegaray9that !epublic %ct No. *9:(, insoar as itprescribes the penalty o death, is unconstitutional nevertheless they submit to theruling o the ma"ority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty shouldaccordingly be imposed.

'ut in the cases o 0ictorino and !ubenson, in Criminal Cases Nos. -- and --9,there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty should bereclusion perpetua, which is the lower o the two indivisible penalties prescribed bylaw.

%s regards the civil liability o appellants Cachola and %may, we hold them "ointlyand severally liable to pay the heirs o each o the victims death indemnity and moraldamages each in the amount o $:;,;;;, or a total o $1;;,;;;. &hey are urtherordered to pay the respective heirs o Carmelita and 5eli# r. e#emplary damages inthe amount o $-:,;;;, or a total o $:;,;;;, in view o the presence o oneaggravating circumstance in the commission o the crime against the said victims. %sto the claim or damages by 5eli# 'arnachea Sr. in the amount o $)**,;;;, wesustain the same even i only a list o e#penses, *not oicial receipts, was submittedbecause such amount was admitted by the deense during the trial.?+oreover,although there is no evidence as to the amount spent as a result o the death o0ictorino and !ubenson, their respective heirs shall be awarded temperate damagesin the amount o $-:,;;;, since they clearly incurred uneral e#penses.(

WHEREFORE,the assailed decision dated -9 September -;;; o the !egional&rial Court o 'auang,


9/207

9&SN, )- %pril -;;;, *, );)).*&SN, )* +ay -;;;, )(-;, ;, 1.?&SN, ); +ay -;;;, -(, -.(E#hibit 3N3, O! vol. -, 1 &SN, -? uly -;;;, :.);E#hs. 3/3 and 3/),3 O! vol. ), )):.))E#hs. 33 and 3),3 O! vol. ), -:-*.)-E#hs. 3I3 and 3I),3 O! vol. ), -)-.)E#hs. 343 and 34),3 O! vol. ), )*)(.)1O!, vol. ), )?:.):O!, vol. ), )9*)*1, -;, -;9-;*.)9$er udge ose /. $aneda. O!, vol. ), 1*:;* !ollo, *-.)*O!, vol. ), :;:.)?$eople v. De 0era, /.!. No. )-?(99, )? %ugust )(((, )- SC!% 91;.)(See $eople v. Sayaboc, /.!. No. )1*-;), ): anuary -;;1.-;$eople v. 'atidor, /. !. No. )-9;-*, )? 5ebruary )(((, ; SC!% : $eople v. OlivareJ, r., /.!.No. **?9:, 1 December )((?, -(( SC!% 9:.-)$eople v. &adepa, /.!. No. );;:1, -9 +ay )((:, -11 SC!% (.--O!, vol. ), :;.-$eople v. 'arnuevo, /.!. No. )1(-?, -? September -;;), 99 SC!% -1 $eople v. 5ernandeJ, /. !.No. )*91*, ) 5ebruary -;;), :) SC!% ?;-1$eople v. ulian5ernandeJ, /.!. Nos. )1?:;:, )? December -;;), *- SC!% 9;?.-:Id.-9/.!. Nos. )))-;9;?, 9 October )((:, -1( SC!% :1.-*Now Section -, !ule ))(, !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure, as amended 6which became eectiveon ) December -;;;7.-?$eople v. &uringan, 1* $hil. (* 6)((*7.-(!ollo, ));.;Id.)$eople v.


10/207

In their %nswer, petitioners stated that W&C obtained the Q*:,;;; loan that Cordovaand Boung bound themselves as its sureties. &hey claimed that only one demandletter, dated %pril )(, )((9, was made by respondent. &hey added that thepromissory note did not provide the due date or payment. $etitioners also claimedthat the loan had not yet matured as the maturity date was purposely let blanF, to beagreed upon by the parties at a later date. Since no maturity date had been i#ed, theiling o the Complaint was premature, and it ailed to state a cause o action. &heyurther claimed that the promissory note and surety agreement were contracts oadhesion with terms on interest, penalty, charges and attorney>s ees that weree#cessive, unconscionable and not relective o the parties> real intent. $etitionersprayed or the reormation o the promissory note and surety agreement to maFe theirterms and conditions air, "ust and reasonable. &hey also asFed payment o damagesby respondent.

On +ay :, )((*, respondent moved or a "udgment on the pleadings. &he !&C,'ranch -( rendered "udgment1and disposed as ollows2

W4E!E5O!E, in view o the oregoing, and to abbreviate this case, "udgment ishereby rendered based on the pleadingGsH iled by the opposing parties and thedocuments anne#ed thereto. &he deendantGsH Wood &echnology Corporation,

!obert &iong Ping Boung and Chi &im Cordova are hereby ordered to pay solidarilyto herein plainti the sum o Q*:,;;;.;; or its e=uivalent in $hilippine Currency andto pay the stipulated interest o ?.*: per annum to be recFoned rom the date thatthe obligation was contracted until the iling o this suit. &hereater, the legal rateshall apply.

SO O!DE!ED.

$etitioners appealed, but the Court o %ppeals airmed the !&C>s "udgment. &heappellate court noted that petitioners admitted the material allegations o theComplaint, with their admission o the due e#ecution o the promissory note andsurety agreement as well as o the inal demand made by the respondent. &he

appellate court ruled that there was no need to present evidence to prove the maturitydate o the promissory note, since it was payable on demand. In addition, the Courto %ppeals held that petitioners ailed to show any ambiguity in the promissory noteand surety agreement in support o their contention that these were contracts oadhesion. 5inally, it ruled that the interest rate on the loan was not e#orbitant.

&he appellate court also denied petitioners> motion or reconsideration.

'eore us, petitioners now raise the ollowing issues2

). W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E %NSWE! O5 $E&I&IONE!S WI&4

S$ECI%< %ND %55I!+%&I0E DE5ENSES 5%I


11/207

In this case, at issue is the propriety and validity o a "udgment on the pleadings. %"udgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer ails to tender an issue, orotherwise admits the material allegations o the adverse party>s pleading.(

'oth the !&C and Court o %ppeals recogniJe that issues were raised by petitionersin their %nswer beore the trial court. &his may be gleaned rom their decisionswhich we partly =uote below2

RTC$ ORDER4

. . .

Deendants raised the ollowing )%:%($%$2

a. &hat the contract is one o adhesion and they were 3orced to sign thesame3

b. &hat the interest G?.*: per annumH, penalties and ees areunconscionable

c. &hat plainti>s demand is premature.);

. . .

Cou o: A##%'l$ DECI"ION4

. . . &hey neither raise ;%(u(% $$u%$o act needing submission o evidence.!ather, %butthe issues thus arising rom the pleadings are sham, ictitious or not genuine, asshown by aidavits, depositions, or admissions. . . . 6@nderscoring and emphasissupplied.7

Indeed, petitioners> %nswer apparently tendered issues. While it admitted that W&Cobtained the loan, that Cordova and Boung signed the promissory note and that theybound themselves as sureties or the loan, it also alleged special and airmativedeenses that the obligation had not matured and that the promissory note and surety

agreement were contracts o adhesion.

%pplying the re=uisites o a "udgment on the pleadings vis))visa summary"udgment, the "udgment rendered by the !&C was not a "udgment on the pleadings,but a summary "udgment. %lthough the %nswer apparently raised issues, both the!&C and the Court o %ppeals ater considering the parties> pleadings, petitioners>admissions and the documents attached to the Complaint, ound that the issues arenot actual ones re=uiring trial, nor were they genuine issues.12vvp!i1.nt

Summary "udgment)*is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or deenses atan early stage o the litigation. &he proper in=uiry in this regard would be whetherthe airmative deenses oered by petitioners constitute genuine issues o act

re=uiring a ullblown trial.)?In a summary "udgment, the crucial =uestion is2 are theissues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to "ustiy a summary "udgmentT)(%3genuine issue3 means an issue o act which calls or the presentation o evidence,as distinguished rom an issue which is ictitious or contrived, an issue that does notconstitute a genuine issue or trial.-;

We note that this is a case or a sum o money, and petitioners have admitted thatthey obtained the loan. &hey also admitted the due e#ecution o the loan documentsand their receipt o the inal demand letter made by the respondent. &hese documentswere all attached to the Complaint. $etitioners merely claimed that the obligation hasnot matured. Notably, based on the promissory note, the !&C and the Court o%ppeals ound this deense not a actual issue or trial, the loan being payable ondemand. We are bound by this actual inding. &his Court is not a trier o acts.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_137915_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_137915_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_137915_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_137915_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153867_2005.html#fnt20


12/207

When respondent made its demand, in our view, the obligation matured. We agreewith both the trial and the appellate courts that this matter proerred as a deensecould be resolved "udiciously by plain resort to the stipulations in the promissorynote which was already beore the trial court. % ullblown trial to determine the dateo maturity o the loan is not necessary. %lso, the act o leaving blanF the maturitydate o the loan did not necessarily mean that the parties agreed to i# it later. I thiswas the intention o the parties, they should have so indicated in the promissorynote.l3vvp!i1.net&hey did not show such intention.l3vvp!i1.net

$etitioners liFewise insist that their deense tendered a genuine issue when theyclaimed that the loan documents constituted a contract o adhesion. Signiicantly,both the trial and appellate courts have already passed upon this contention andproperly ruled that it was not a actual issue or trial. We agree with their ruling thatthere is no need o trial to resolve this particular line o deense. %ll that is needed isa careul perusal o the loan documents. %s held by the Court o %ppeals, petitionersailed to show any ambiguity in the loan documents. &he rule is that, should there beambiguities in a contract o adhesion, such ambiguities are to be construed againstthe party that prepared it. 4owever, i the stipulations are clear and leave no doubt onthe intention o the parties, the literal meaning o its stipulations must be heldcontrolling.-)

In sum, we ind no cause to disturb the indings o act o the Court o %ppeals,airming those o the !&C as to the reasonableness o the interest rate o ?.*: perannum on the loan. We also ind no persuasive reason to contradict the ruling o bothcourts that the loan secured by petitioner W&C, with copetitioners as sureties, waspayable on demand. Certainly, respondent>s complaint could not be consideredpremature. Nor could it be said to be without suicient cause o action therein setorth. &he "udgment rendered by the trial court is valid as a summary "udgment, andits airmance by the Court o %ppeals, as herein clariied, is in order.

WHEREFORE, the $etition is DENIED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED.

Davide, r., C.., 6Chairman7, BnaresSantiago, Carpio, and %Jcuna, ., concur.

Foo(o%$)Rollo, pp. 1;1*. $enned by %ssociate ustice Conrado +. 0as=ueJ, r., with %ssociate ustices +artinS. 0illarama, r., and ElieJer !. delos Santos concurring.-0d. at :*.Now E=uitable $CI 'anF.1!ecords, p. 1?.:Rollo, p. )).90d. at ?:?*.*0d. at ););9.?Evadel !ealty and Development Corporation v. Soriano, /.!. No. )11-(), -; %pril -;;), :* SC!%(:, 1;;.(!ules o Court, !ule 1, Section ). #udgment on t!e pleadings. U Where an answer ails to tender an

issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations o the adverse party>s pleading, the court may, onmotion o that party, direct "udgment on such pleading. 4owever, in actions or declaration o nullity or

annulment o marriage or or legal separa tion, the material acts alleged in the c omplaint shall always beproved.);!ecords, p. 1?.))Rollo, p. 11.)-0d. at ?9.)0d. at );9.)1Evangel ista v. +erca tor 5inance Corp., /.!. No. )1??91, -) %ugust -;;, 1;( SC!% 1);, 1):.):/arcia v.


13/207

A.M. No. RTJ001/91 A#l 11, 200265ormerly OCA II No. 98-90RTJ7

LA*RENTINO D. +A"C*G,complainant,vs.J*DGE GRACIANO H. ARINDA!, JR., %$)(; Ju);%, +'(< 69, R%;o('lT'l Cou o: N%;o$ O)%('l, "l'y Cy,respondent.

&IT*G,J.2

% complaint, dated ;) December )((*, initiated by


14/207

rendition o a "udgment on the pleadings even while the deendant corporation,Odisco 5arms System Cooperative 5oundation o which complainant 'ascug was the$resident, had never agreed to it. In act, complainant 'ascug stated, the corporationprecisely did not submit any memorandum or "udgment on the pleadings re=uiredby respondent "udge in his order o -; December )((1. On ;1 %pril )((:,respondent "udge, nevertheless, rendered a "udgment based on the pleadings in avoro the plaintis. % motion or the reconsideration o the decision was denied in anorder o )) December )((:. &he case was later brought to the Court o %ppeals. Inits decision, dated )1 %ugust )((?, the appellate court set aside the appealed"udgment and remanded the case to the court a =uo or urther proceedings.

In Criminal Case No. 1;;;9(, entitled 3&he $eople o the $hilippines vs. 0icenteDitching, r., et al.,3 complainant 'ascug, the atherinlaw o the complainingwitness, asserted that there was irregularity in the service o the warrant o arrestagainst the accused. 4e averred that respondent "udge had ailed to commence anyprosecution against the persons liable.

!e=uired to submit his comment on the complaint, respondent "udge reuted theseveral allegations in the complaint. 4e attributed the delay in the resolution o CivilCases No. )*(*9( and No. )*(?9( to the ormer counsel o complainant who had

ailed to ile any opposition to the second motion or reconsideration. 4e denied theaverment that he delayed the resolution o the cases due to the inluence over him bythe municipal mayor o 0ictorias. %s regards Civil Case No. )*)?9(, respondent"udge maintained that the parties, including the ormer counsel o complainant, hadmaniested that they had no ob"ection to the submission o the case or "udgment onthe pleadings. !espondent "udge disowned any irregularity in Criminal Case No.1;;;9(. 4e argued that i, indeed, there was any problem about the service o thewarrant o arrest, that matter should have been addressed to Senior Inspector


15/207

Vcon"ecturesK on the VwildK monetary claims o plaintis. In view o theob"ections e#pressed by the deendants to the issues raised, there was noclear agreement to submit the case to a "udgment or the pleadings, muchless an implied admission o each otherKs actual allegations, which thedeendantsappellants correctly describe as Vwidely opposing,K that wouldsupport a submission by the parties to a "udgment on the pleadings.3

&he Court shares the view o OC% that respondent "udge has allen below

circumspection and the standard o conduct e#pected o him.

W4E!E5O!E, the Court inds udge /raciano 4. %rinday, r., o the !egional &rialCourt o Silay City, Negros Occidental, 'ranch 9(, guilty o gross ineiciency andgrave misconduct and hereby imposes on him a ine o 5I0E &4O@S%ND $ESOSwith a warning that any urther inraction will be dealt with severely.

SO O!DE!ED.

elo, 5C!airman6, %anganiban, $andoval)*utierre+, and Carpio, ##., concur.

Foo(o%$)!ule *, Section 1, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure.-Section :, !ule * o the !evised !ules on Civil $rocedure-1* SC!% :)(.

G.R. No. 173289 F%5u'y 17, 2010

ELAND HILIINE", INC.,$etitioner,vs.A*CENA GARCIA, ELINO FAJARDO, AND HEIR OF TI+*RCIOMALA+ANAN NAMED TERE"A MALA+ANAN,!espondents.

D E C I S I O N

ERALTA,J.:

&his is a $etition or !eview on Certiorari under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court,seeFing to reverse and set aside the decision)dated 5ebruary -?, -;;9 o the Court o%ppeals 6C%7 in C%/.!. C0 No. 9*1)*, which dismissed the appeal o petitionerEland $hilippines, Inc. and airmed the !esolutions dated November , )((( andune -?, -;;9 o 'ranch )?, !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o &agaytay City.

&he acts o the case, as shown in the records, are the ollowing2

!espondents %Jucena /arcia, Elino 5a"ardo, and &eresa +alabanan, the heir o&iburcio +alabanan, iled a Complaint-dated +arch -, )((? or uieting o &itlewith Writ o $reliminary In"unction with the !&C, 'ranch 80III, &agaytay Cityagainst petitioner Eland $hilippines, Inc. !espondents claimed that they are theowners, in ee simple title, o a parcel o land identiied as


16/207

comment, and set the date o the hearing on uly -, )((?. !espondents iled a+otion to %dmit CommentAOpposition to Deendant Eland,))together with thecorresponding CommentAOpposition)-dated une ?, )((?.

On the scheduled hearing o September -, )((?, the trial court issued anOrder,)considering the +otion to Dismiss submitted or resolution due to the nonappearance o the parties and their respective counsels. &he said motion waseventually denied by the trial court in an Order)1dated September -:, )((?, ruling

that the allegations in the complaint established a cause o action and en"oinedpetitioner Eland to ile its answer to the complaint within ten 6);7 days rom receipto the same. $etitioner then iled two +otions or E#tension to 5ile an %nswer. ):

$etitioner, on November (, )((?, iled a +otion or !econsideration)9o the trialcourtKs Order dated September -:, )((?, denying the ormerKs +otion to Dismiss.%gain, petitioner iled a +otion or 5inal E#tension o &ime to 5ile %nswer)*datedNovember 9, )((?. !espondents iled their CommentAOpposition to +otion or!econsideration dated November -1, )((?. Subse=uently, the trial court deniedpetitionerKs motion or reconsideration in an Order )?dated anuary )), )(((.

+eanwhile, respondents iled a +otion to Declare Deendant Eland in

Deault)(dated November )*, )((?. On December 1, )((? $etitioner Eland iled itsComment 6on $laintiKs +otion to Declare Deendant Eland in Deault7-;datedDecember -, )((?, while respondents iled a !eply to Comment 6on $laintiKs+otion to Declare Deendant Eland in Deault7-)dated December -(, )((?.&hereater, the trial court issued an Order--dated anuary )), )((( declaring thepetitioner in deault and allowed the respondents to present evidence e7 parte.$etitioner iled a +otion or !econsideration 6o the Order dated )) anuary)(((7-dated 5ebruary :, )((( on the trial courtKs denial o its motion to dismiss andin declaring it in deault. &he trial court in an Order -1dated +arch )?, )(((, deniedthe ormer and granted the latter. In the same Order, the trial court admittedpetitionerKs %nswerAd Cautelam.

Earlier, petitioner iled its %nswerAd Cautelam6With CompulsoryCounterclaim7-:dated November )-, )((?. !espondents countered by iling a+otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer rom the !ecords-9dated December -, )((?.$etitioner iled its Opposition 6to $laintiKs +otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer romthe !ecords7-*dated December -), )((?, as well as a Comment 6on $laintiKs+otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer rom the !ecords7-?dated anuary -9, )(((.

Conse=uently, respondents iled a +otion to Set $resentation o EvidenceE7%arte-(dated anuary )?, )(((, which was granted in an Order;dated anuary --,)(((.

On anuary -?, )(((, respondents presented their evidence beore the ClerF o Courto the trial court which ended on 5ebruary , )((( and, on 5ebruary );, )(((,

respondents iled their 5ormal Oer o Evidence.)4owever, petitioner iled an@rgent +otion to Suspend $laintiKsE7 %arte$resentation o Evidence-dated5ebruary ?, )(((. In that regard, the trial court issued an Order dated 5ebruary )),)((( directing the ClerF o Court to suspend the proceedings.

On +ay )1, )(((, respondents iled a +otion or Clariication1as to whether or notthe evidence presented e7 partewas nulliied by the admission o petitionerKs%nswerAd Cautelam. $etitioner iled its Comment:dated +ay ), )((( on the said

motion or clariication.

% pretrial conerence was scheduled on +ay -*, )(((, wherein the partiessubmitted their pretrial bries.94owever, petitioner iled a +otion to Suspend$roceedings*dated +ay -1, )((( on the ground that the same petitioner had iled apetition or certiorariwith the C%, asFing or the nulliication o the Order dated+arch )?, )((( o the trial court and or the airmation o its earlier Order denyingpetitionerKs +otion to Dismiss. &he petition or certiorariwas subse=uently deniedand a copy o the !esolution?dated une )1, )((( was received by the trial court.4ence, in an Order(dated uly *, )(((, the trial court ruled that the reception oevidence already presented by the respondents beore the ClerF o Court remained aspart o the records o the case, and that the petitioner had the right to crosse#amine

the witness and to comment on the documentary e#hibits already presented.Conse=uently, petitioner iled a +otion or !econsideration1;dated uly )(, )(((,but it was denied by the trial court in an Omnibus Order1)dated September )1, )(((.

Eventually, respondents iled a +otion or Summary udgment1-dated %ugust :,)(((, while petitioner iled its Opposition1to the +otion dated %ugust ), )(((. Inits !esolution11dated November , )(((, the trial court ound avor on therespondents. &he dispositive portion o the !esolution reads2

W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion or summary "udgment is hereby/!%N&ED and it is hereby ad"udged that2

). $laintis are the absolute owners and rightul possessors o


17/207

$etitioner appealed the !esolution o the trial court with the C%, which dismissed itin a Decision dated 5ebruary -?, -;;9, which reads2

W4E!E5O!E, or lacF o merit, the appeal is DIS+ISSED. &he assailed!esolution dated November , )(((, o the !&C, 'ranch )?, &agaytay City, in CivilCase No. &/)*?1, is %55I!+ED. No pronouncement as to cost.

SO O!DE!ED.

4ence, the present petition.

&he grounds relied upon by the petitioner are the ollowing2

:.) &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%


18/207


19/207

e#ception o actions or annulment o marriage or declaration o its nullity or orlegal separation.1?

$roceeding to the main issue, this Court inds that the grant o summary "udgmentwas not proper. % summary "udgment is permitted only i there is no genuine issueas to any material act and a moving party is entitled to a "udgment as a matter olaw. % summary "udgment is proper i, while the pleadings on their ace appear toraise issues, the aidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving

party show that such issues are not genuine.

1(

It must be remembered that the (o(%?$%(% o: ' ;%(u(% $$u%is the determiningactor in granting a motion or summary "udgment, and the o='(

In ruling that there was indeed no genuine issue involved, the trial court merelystated that2

&his Court, going by the records, observed Feenly that plaintis> 'u$% o: 'o(or=uieting o title on the disputed parcel o land is based on the alleged :'u) (


20/207

Eland has not attained incontrovertibility. 64eirs o +anuel !o#as v. Court o%ppeals, /.!. No. ))?19, prom. +arch -), )((*7.

Notwithstanding, the$$u% o: #o$$%$$o( $ ' @u%$o( o: :' 5y


21/207

-.9 %nswering deendant speciically denies the allegations contained inparagraph ) o the complaint or the reason that deendant has neverladgrabbed any parcel o land belonging to others, much less rom theplaintis, and urther, answering deendant speciically denies theallegations therein that plaintis engaged the services o a lawyer or a eeor lacF o Fnowledge r inormation suicient to orm a belie as to the truththereo.

-.* %nswering deendant speciically denies the allegations contained inparagraphs )1, ):, )9, )* and )? o the Complaint or lacF o Fnowledge orinormation suicient to orm a belie as the truth thereo.

-.? %nswering deendant speciically denies the allegations contained inparagraphs I0 6a7 to I0 6c7 or the reason that, as abovestated, i the parcelo land being claimed by the plaintis is the same as that parcel o landsub"ect matter o

Incidentally, the indings o the trial court contained in the disputed summary"udgment were obtained through "udicial notice o the acts and rulings pertaining tothat earlier case 6

# # # &here is overwhelming evidence or proo on record that the vendors listed inE#hibit 344,3 with submarFings, are the previous owners o the parcel o landmentioned in the same deed o sale and aside orm the ta# declarations covering thesame property 6E#hibits 33 to 3&,3 inclusive7, the uncontroverted testimony o %tty.!uben !o#as establishes beyond any shadow o doubt that applicantKs 6reerring toherein deendantappellant7 sellersApredecessorsininterest are the grandchildren,great grandchildren and great great grandchildren o the spouses


22/207

On the basis o the oregoing acts and circumstances, and considering that applicantis a domestic corporation not otherwise dis=ualiied rom owning real properties inthe $hilippines, this Court inds that applicant has satisied all theconditionsAre=uirements essential to the grant o its application pursuant to theprovisions o the In anaction or =uieting o title, the competent court is tasFed to determine the respectiverights o the complainant and other claimants, # # # not only to place things in theirproper place, to maFe the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and notdisturb the other, but also or the beneit o both, so that he who has the right wouldsee every cloud o doubt over the property dissipated, and he could aterwardswithout ear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse theproperty as he deems best ###.

@nder %rticle 1*9 o the New Civil Code, the remedy may be availed o only when,by reason o any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, whichappears valid but is, in act, invalid, ineective, voidable, or unenorceable, a cloudis thereby cast on the complainant>s title to real property or any interest therein. &hecodal provision reads2

%rticle 1*9. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein,by reason o any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which isapparently valid or eective but is in truth and in act invalid, ineective, voidable,or unenorceable, and may be pre"udicial to said title, an action may be brought to

remove such cloud or to =uiet the title.

%n action may also be brought to prevent a cloud rom being cast upon title to realproperty or any interest therein.

In turn, %rticle 1** o the same Code identiies the party who may bring an action to=uiet title, thus2

%rticle 1**. &he plainti must have legal or e=uitable title to, or interest in the realproperty which is the sub"ectmatter o the action. 4e need not be in possession osaid property.

It can thus be seen that or an action or =uieting o title to prosper, the plainti mustirst have a legal, or, at least, an e=uitable title on the real property sub"ect o theaction and that the alleged cloud on his title must be shown to be in act invalid. So itis that inRobles, et al. vs. CA,::we ruled2

It is essential or the plainti or complainant to have a legal title or an e=uitable titleto or interest in the real property which is the sub"ect matter o the action. %lso, thedeed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged as a cloud on plainti>stitle must be shown to be in act invalid or inoperative despite its primafacieappearance o validity or legal eicacy.

0erily, or an action to =uiet title to prosper, two 6-7 indispensable re=uisites mustconcur, namely2 61


23/207

o o (%%$ (


24/207

said period, the decree becomes incontrovertible and no longer sub"ect to reopeningor review.

"%o( 32 #o=)%$ o:


25/207

--Id. at -)1.-Id. at --1.-1Id. at ;:.-:Id. at )**.-9Id. at )(*.-*Id. at -;;.-?Id. at --).-(Id. at -)?.;Id. at --;.)Id. at -(.-Id. at -:.

Id. at -1?.1Id. at *9.:Id. at *(.9Id. at *; or the respondents, p. (1 or petitioner.*Id. at (?.?Id. at 1?9.(Id. at 1().1;Id. at 1(-.1)Id. at :-;.1-Id. at :;9.1Id. at :).11Id. at :--.1:!ollo, p. 19(.19Now Secs.) and , !ule :, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure.1*+utuc v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. 1?);?, September -9, )((;, )(; SC!% 1.1?

See Carlos v. Sandoval, et al, /. !. No. )*((--, December )9, -;;?, SC!% :*1 ))9, citing Republic v.$andiganba4an, /.!. No. ):-):1, November )?, -;;, 1)9 SC!% ), citing 5amily Code, %rts. 1? L9;, andRoque v. Encarnacion, (9 $hil. 91 6)(:17.1(ariano /ocom v. Oscar Camerino, et al., /. !. No. )?-(?1, 5ebruary );, -;;(, :*? SC!% (;, citingOng v. !oban


26/207

CARIO,J.:

&he Case

'eore us is a petition or review)o the -( November )((( Decision-and : une-;;; !esolution o the Court o %ppeals in C%/.!. C0 No. 1)9;1. &he Court o%ppeals airmed the )( une )(?( Decisiono the !egional &rial Court o NegrosOccidental, 'ranch 11, 'acolod City in Civil Case No. ):)1.

&he %ntecedent 5acts

$etitionerspouses %ntonio and Soledad Consing 63%ntonio and Soledad37 weresugararm landowners. %ntonio and Soledad mortgaged their properties to the$hilippine National 'anF 63$N'37 0ictorias 'ranch. %ntonio and Soledad also hadan annual agricultural crop loan with $N'. % portion o this loan was or a ertiliJerline.

$rivate respondent Sugar $roducers> Cooperative +arFeting %ssociation63S$C+%37 is a cooperative engaged in assisting plantersmembers procure ertiliJerand other arm needs.

In )(*:, %ntonio and Soledad purchased on credit various grades o ertiliJerthrough S$C+% on the strength o the documents presented by %ntonio andSoledad. &he documents consisted o a certiication issued by $N' and a promissorynote chargeable against $N'. &he certiication o $N' stated that %ntonio andSoledad 3have a )(*:*9 %gricultural Crop Cooperative +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., and against deendantspouses %ntonio andSoledad Consing.

&he record shows that sometime in )(*:, deendantspouses purchased on accountvarious grades o ertiliJers rom plainti cooperative, as shown in E#hibits 3'3,3C3, 3D3, 3E3, 353, 3/3, 343, and 3I3. &he total purchase price o whichwas $:11,;:1.;; as shown in E#hibit 3P3. Deendantspouses however ailed to paytheir obligation to plainti, hence the present suit.

On the other hand, the deendantspouses in their answer, admit their indebtednesswith plainti regarding the cost o ertiliJers but deny the accuracy o the account,

other charges and e#penses alleged in the complaint. &hat the promissory notee#ecuted by deendantspouses in avor o plainti was novated by a subse=uentagreement.

It appears that deendantspouses had a )(*:*9 %gricultural Sugar Crop


27/207

severally ); o the total unpaid obligation as attorney>s ees and to pay the costso this suit.

SO O!DE!ED. 1

&he !uling o the Court o %ppeals

&he Court o %ppeals ruled that based on the documentary evidence, %ntonio and

Soledad were the purchasers in the transaction. %ntonio signed the 5ertiliJer Order.%ntonio bound himsel and his wie, Soledad, to pay or reimburse S$C+% or theprice, including delivery e#penses and ta#es, o the ertiliJers. &he invoices, deliveryorder and record o deliveries bear the name o %ntonio as the recipient or transereeo the goods. None o these actionable documents, the genuineness and duee#ecution o which %ntonio and Soledad did not controvert, show that $N' assumedresponsibility or %ntonio and Soledad>s obligations.

&he Court o %ppeals held that $N' was not the guarantor or surety o %ntonio andSoledad. Citing %rticle -;:: o the Civil Code, the Court o %ppeals ruled that aguaranty cannot be presumed but must be e#press. &he $N' certiication does notshow that $N' guaranteed the transaction as the certiication merely embodied the

ollowing undertaFing2

In this connection, we will hold or your account ater we have been duly inormedo any ertiliJer advances you may have e#tended to udge L +rs. %ntonio Consingor the )(*9** crop against his ertiliJer allotment or this aorementioned )(*9**as soon as the same has been processed and approved by us. :

&he dispositive portion o the decision o the Court o %ppeals reads2

W4E!E5O!E, inding no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same ishereby %55I!+ED.

SO O!DE!ED.9

&he Court o %ppeals denied the motion or reconsideration o %ntonio and Soledadas it saw no cogent reason to set aside its decision. &he dispositive portion o theappellate court>s resolution reads2

W4E!E5O!E, the sub"ect motion or reconsideration is hereby DENIED or lacF omerit.

SO O!DE!ED.*

&he Issues

%ntonio and Soledad raise the ollowing issues in their memorandum2

). &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%


28/207

to be accompanied by certiied true copies o 3all pleadings and documents pertinentthereto.3

We disagree. In Cadayona v. Court o %ppeals,);we held that in appeals by certiorariunder !ule 1:,))what the rules re=uire is a certiied true copy o the =uestioned"udgment, inal order or resolution.

&he present petition is accompanied by the certiied true copies o the decision o the

trial court and the decision and resolution o the Court o %ppeals. &he petitionthereore does not suer rom any inirmity.

Decision o the !egional &rial Court 5ailed to State the

discussion o the merits othis case enabled the parties to pinpoint the proper issues that we now review.

%ntonio and Soledad are Solely inding that %ntonio andSoledad purchased on credit the ertiliJers through S$C+%. &he obligation to pay issolely that o %ntonio and Soledad>s since they ailed to prove that $N' was their

guarantor or surety.

We will not allow %ntonio and Soledad to adopt a new deense at this very late stageo the case. &o permit them to do so would not only be unair to the other party but itwould also be oensive to the basic rules o air play, "ustice and dueprocess.)&hus, we will not delve into %ntonio and Soledad>s new claim that $N'should be liable to S$C+% because $N' managed their arm. &he act that %ntonioand Soledad are introducing this unsubstantiated claim or the very irst time is proothat this deense is "ust an aterthought.

&otal %mount Due to S$C+%

%ntonio and Soledad contest the $),-1,-:.-: and the legal interest the trial andappellate courts awarded to S$C+%. %ntonio and Soledad argue that the total claimo S$C+% in its complaint amounted to only $9;*,(:;.1(, which is the value o theunpaid ertiliJers. &he $9;*,(:;.1( should have been the basis o the award and notthe$),-1,-:.-: which already includes the principal, interest, li=uidated damagesand attorney>s ees. %ntonio and Soledad insist that there was a double imposition ointerest when the trial and appellate courts ordered them to payS$C+% $),-1,-:.-: with legal interest rom ? November )(**, the date o ilingo the complaint until ull payment. %ntonio and Soledad implore us to correct thisreversible error.

%ntonio and Soledad raised the issue o double imposition o interest in their appealbeore the Court o %ppeals but the appellate court did not pass upon this issue. Wemodiy the award made by the trial and appellate courts. We do not base ourmodiication o the decisions o the two courts on %ntonio and Soledad>s theory odouble imposition o interest, but on the ground that the trial and appellate courtsawarded attorney>s ees twice. We also clariy the imposition o legal interest.

&he records reveal that as o ; %pril )(?, the total claim o S$C+% against%ntonio and Soledad is$),-1,-:.-:.)1While S$C+% alleged in the complaint thatthe unpaid ertiliJer account o %ntonio and Soledad was $9;*,(:;.1(, S$C+%however urther alleged in the complaint that2

it has been stipulated that in case o delay in the payment o the aoresaid obligation,deendants G%ntonio and SoledadH shall pay plainti GS$C+%H, aside rom the rate


29/207

o ) per month rom the date said obligation became overdue, another sume=uivalent to twenty ive 6-:7 percent o the amount as attorney>s ees ande#penses o collection plus 6);7 percent o the indebtedness as li=uidated damageswhich, in either case, shall not be less than $-:; in addition to the costs olitigation.):

&he terms and conditions o the contract embodied in the 5ertiliJer Order are alsoclear. %ntonio, on behal o Soledad, agreed to the ollowing terms2

I hereby agree and irmly bind mysel to pay or reimburse the Sugar $roducer>s+arFeting %ssociation, Inc., the prices or which these ertiliJers have beencontracted or plus handling and delivery e#penses, ta#es and all other charges,incidental or otherwise, it being agreed and hereby stipulated that my ertiliJeraccount shall automatically become overdue i not paid on actual delivery o theertiliJer ordered i delivery is made in ull and on actual delivery o each part o thewhole order, i delivery is partially made, it being urther agreed and liFewise herebystipulated that interest at the rate o one 6)7 per cent a month shall be charged onall my overdue accounts beginning or eective rom the date when my aoresaidertiliJer accounts shall be considered as automatically overdue. Notiication,correspondence or other communications rom the Sugar $roducer>s +arFeting

%ssociation, Inc., to the corresponding planter or planters> association shall beconsidered and accepted as notiication to the undersigned planter himsel and anyact, gesture or representation by the planters association shall be considered as thepersonal actuations, gesture or representation by the undersigned planter himsel.

# # #

In the event o the planter>s ailure to pay the herein ertiliJer account together withthe corresponding e#penses, ta#es and other charges as they are considered asautomatically due, the planter hereby binds himsel to urther pay the Sugar$roducer>s +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., an additional sum e=uivalent to twentyive6-:7 per cent o the total amount due, or and as attorney>s ees plus ); o the

indebtedness as li=uidated damages, in either case not to be less than $-:;.;; inaddition to costs o collection or suit irrespective o whether the case is settled"udicially or e#tra"udicially. ###)96Emphasis ours7

%ntonio and Soledad did not only bind themselves to pay the principal amount, theyalso promised to pay 6)7 the interest o ) per month on all the overdue accounts,6-7 the additional sum o -: o the total amount due as attorney>s ees, and 67 );o the indebtedness as li=uidated damages which, in either case, shall not be lessthan $-:;. Since %ntonio and Soledad reely entered into the contract, thestipulations in the contract are binding on them.

&he law allows a party to recover attorney>s ees under a written agreement. %rticle--;? o the Civil Code provides that an award o attorney>s ees is proper i the

parties stipulate it.)*&he parties in this case agreed in writing that %ntonio andSoledad are liable or -: attorney>s ees. &he total amount inally ad"udged by thetrial and appellate courts, which is $),-1,-:.-:, already includes the stipulated-: attorney>s ees. Bet, the trial and appellate courts still made another award o); attorney>s ees.

We delete the separate award o ); attorney>s ees, as there is no basis in awardingattorney>s ees twice. &he trial and appellate courts also ailed to lay down the legaland e=uitable reasons or the second award o attorney>s ees. &he second award oattorney>s ees, which the parties did not stipulate, is not one o those casesenumerated in %rticle --;? that would "ustiy the award o attorney>s ees.

&he trial and appellate courts imposed legal interest on the $),-1,-:.-: withoutspeciying the legal rate o interest. In Eastern Shipping


30/207


31/207

G.R. No. 163208 Au;u$ 13, 2008

HEIR" OF J*AN &ALDE, "". OTENCIANO MAL&AR '() LO*RDE"MAL&AR,petitioners,vs.THE HONORA+LE CO*RT OF AEAL" '() L.C. LOE RE"O*RCE",INC.,respondents.

D E C I " I O N

+RION,J.4

&wo conlicting resolutions were issued on the same date in the same case. &he irstresolution dismissed the case without pre"udice or violation o the provision againstorum shopping. &he other re=uired the respondent 6petitionerherein7 tocomment. W


32/207

&he heirs and spouses +alvar seeF to reverse the ollowing resolutions in theollowing cases iled by


33/207

It was also brought to Our attention by the Division ClerF, ater scrutiny othe records, that there has been a clerical error in what was supposed to bedelivered as thin copies or the three 67 thicF copies o the !esolution Weactually promulgated on +ay :, -;; # # # &he inadvertently delivered thincopy o the said resolution received by the petitionerKs counsel was the onedismissing the petition without pre"udice, and the same copy pertained tothe drat resolution which We did not approve. &he copy o the resolutionreceived by private respondent Cristeta dela !osaKs counsel is the onere=uiring comment and which corresponds to Our actual !esolution dated

+ay :, -;;.

&he oregoing e#plains why there is a reiling o the petition with thisCourt, because o the inadvertently delivered copy o the drat resolutionreceived by the petitioner, dismissing the case without pre"udice. %s such,the error needs to be rectiied since the petition docFeted as C%/.!. S$No. **9): is actually the same as the case at bar.)-

&he Ninth Division duly urnished theponenteo the reiled petition 6rom theSeventh Division7 a copy o its %ugust ), -;; resolution.

&he heirs and spouses +alvar subse=uently sought a reconsideration o anotherresolution rom the Ninth Division dated December )-, -;; that, among others,granted them ); days to ile their comment. &he C% denied the motion in its %pril -,-;;1 !esolution in light o its %ugust ), -;; !esolution.

%roceedings in CA)*.R. $% /o. ??@1:

In response to the irst +ay :, -;; !esolution dismissing its petition withoutpre"udice,


34/207

orum shopping, 3shall be suicient ground or the dismissal o the petition3. &hus,the Ninth Division correctly dismissed the petition it!out pre"udice.

&hat the C% could also re=uire the respondents to comment, with the obligation onthe part o the petitioner to undertaFe rectiication, is not without support romestablished "urisprudence. In several cases,)9we allowed initiatory pleadings orpetitions with initially deective veriications and certiications o nonorumshopping on the ground o substantial compliance.)*We reasoned that strictcompliance with the re=uirement merely underscores its mandatory nature, in that, itcannot be dispensed with or its re=uirements altogether disregarded.)?&hus, we haveheld that the subse=uent submission o the re=uired documents 6such as thesecretaryKs certiicate7 constituted substantial compliance with the procedural rulesthat "ustiied rela#ation o the re=uirements in the interest o "ustice.)(

&hus, either way, the C% would have been correct. &o our mind, it is important tomaFe this determination to establish that ot!er t!an t!e CABs mistae in releasingto conflicting resolutionsin the same case and on the same date, the C% action waslegally above board. &his determination is particularly material or purposes o thegrave abuse o discretion the petitioners impute against the Court o %ppeals orissuing two conlicting resolutions in initially acting on the case. In the absence oany showing that the twin issuance was attended by partiality, or by hostility to oneparty as against another, or in open and patent disregard o the applicable laws, nograve abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction e#ists in the C%action. &he twin issuance was, as the C% Ninth Division admitted, the result o amistaFe. &he e#ercise o discretion in the C%Ks action came into play in theconsideration o what action to taFe in light o the deiciency in the petitionKscertiication against orum shopping. &hat a resolution that was not intended to beissued, was issued, does not at all involve an e#ercise o discretion, much less itsabuse.

8ecause t!e mistae as on t!e part of t!e court, it is a7iomatic t!at none of t!eparties s!ould suffer for t!e mistae. &his is particularly true given that the parties all

acted pursuant to the resolution they respectively received. &o be sure,


35/207


36/207

G.R. No. 13/630 "%#%5% 26, 2000

INTRAM*RO" TENNI" CL*+, INC. ITC, HILIINE TENNI"A""OCIATION HILTA '() ITC TENNI" LA!ER", petitioners,vs.HILIINE TO*RI"M A*THORIT! TA, CL*+ INTRAM*RO", '()CO*RT OF AEAL", "%o() D=$o(,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

GONAGARE!E",J.:

&his petition or certiorariassails two resolutions o the Second Division o theCourt o %ppeals which granted private respondent>s motion or e#ecution pendingappeal and ordered the !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch :; to issue thecorresponding writ o e#ecution. &he antecedent acts are as ollows2

$rivate respondent $hilippine &ourism %uthority 63$&%37 owns the 0ictoria &ennisCourts located in Intramuros, +anila by virtue o $residential Decree No. )*9. In a+emorandum o %greement 63+O%37 e#ecuted on une )), )(?*, the $&%transerred the management, operation, administration and development o the0ictoria &ennis Courts to petitioner $hilippine &ennis %ssociation 63$4I


37/207

the country, and orm part o $hilippine history and cultural heritage the 0ictoria&ennis Courts are one o the ew remaining public tennis courts in +etro +anilaopen to the less aluent petitioners are maintaining the tennis courts at high cost,and unless the demolition is restrained, they will be unable to recoup theirinvestments the demolition will result in the displacement o the worFers in thetennis courts and, as players and aficionadoso tennis, petitioners stand to lose thecamaraderie that playing in 0ictoria &ennis Courts helped oster among them.

&he temporary restraining order was granted on +ay --, )((9, and petitioners were

allowed to retain possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts.

&hereater, or on une )*, )((9, the !&C also granted the writ o preliminaryin"unction prayed or by petitioners, based upon a inding that $&% in pursuing thegol course e#pansion program was in eect unilaterally preterminating the +O%.In the same order, it declared that 3petitioner I&C is an ailiate o $4I cause o action was rendered moot andacademic. 4owever, petitioners maintained that their petition was also an action or

damages hence, there are other issues or resolution despite the termination o the+O%.

&he !&C granted the motion to dismiss, inding that based on the allegations o thepetition in relation to the relies demanded, petitioners> only purpose was to stop$&% rom pursuing the gol course e#pansion program on account o the tennisactivities that will utiliJe 0ictoria &ennis Courts as venue. It also ound that theevidence submitted by the parties at the trial revolved around the issue o whetherthe preliminary in"unction should be declared permanent or lited. &his issue hasresolved itsel when the +O% e#pired. &he !&C noted that by the terms o the +O%the contract between $&% and $4I action has become moot and academic by reason o the

e#piration o the +O% upon which petitioners> rights were based.

$etitioners appealed to respondent court. While the case was pending therewith,private respondents iled a motion or e#ecution o "udgment pending appealinvoFing that under Section 1, !ule ( o the )((* !evised !ules o Court"udgments in actions or in"unction are not stayed by appeals taFen thererom. &hus2

Sec. 1. #udgments not sta4ed b4 appeal. udgments in actions or in"unction,receivership, accounting and support, and such other "udgments as are now or mayhereater be declared to be immediately e#ecutory, shall be enorceable ater theirrendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taFen thererom, unless otherwise

ordered by the trial court. On appeal thererom, the appellee court in its discretionmay maFe an order suspending, modiying, restoring or granting the in"unction,receivership, accounting, or award o support. 6@nderscoring supplied7

&he motion alleged that there was an urgent necessity on the part o privaterespondents to immediately taFe possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts 3by reasono its being heavily deteriorated and unsanitiJed because o Gpetitioners>H ailure tomaintain its good condition.3 It appended a letter by a group o tennis players,addressed to &ourism Secretary +ina &. /abor, complaining about the state o theacilities and general uncleanliness o the tennis courts and appealing that 3thedepredations committed by $4Is premature dismissal o the petition. &hus, respondent court should, inthe e#ercise o its discretion whether or not to allow e#ecution pending appeal, leantowards the preservation o petitioners> right to appeal.

In a resolution dated uly (, )((?, the Second Division o respondent court?tooF intoconsideration the ground advanced by private respondents, i.e., that the 0ictoria&ennis Courts are illmaintained by $4I


38/207

e#pired and private respondents had made it clear that there will be no renewal o thesaid agreement, $&% as lessor is entitled to e#ercise all its rights o ownership andpossession over the 0ictoria &ennis Courts. It also observed that the petitioners>appeal rom the order o the !&C was merely dilatory, and that the outcome o theappeal will not in any way alter the act o private respondents> entitlement to thepossession and administration o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts.(&hus, the dispositiveportion o respondent court>s resolution provides2

W4E!E5O!E, or the special reasons set orth above, the motion or e#ecution

pending appeal is hereby /!%N&ED upon payment and approval o this court o abond in the amount o $?;;,;;;.;;.

SO O!DE!ED.);

In their motion or reconsideration, petitioners argued that under Section -, !ule (o the !evised !ules o Court respondent court should have conducted hearings toascertain whether there were 3good reasons3 to issue the writ o e#ecution pendingappeal. !espondent court denied their motion or lacF o merit,))and declared thatcontrary to petitioners> asseverations, the determination o 3good reasons3 orallowing e#ecution pending appeal does not strictly re=uire a ormal or trialtype

hearing instead, the parties may be heard by way o pleadings. In the case opetitioners, their arguments against private respondents> motion or e#ecutionpending appeal were heard when they iled their comment thereto. +oreover, under!ule ? o the !evised Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals

Section ). Oral Argument. &he necessity or propriety o oral argument shall bedetermined by the ustice assigned to study and report on the case and the oralargument shall be conined to those matters which he may speciy. 4owever, in lieuo oral arguments, said ustice may allow the parties to ile their respectivememoranda within iteen 6):7 days rom notice.

$etitioners also contended that the trial court had no "urisdiction to rule on $&%>s

possessory rights over the tennis courts, because the appropriate action to determinethose rights is unlawul detainer which is under the "urisdiction o +&Cs.!espondent court dismissed the argument stating that it was inconsistent opetitioners to now =uestion the !&C>s "urisdiction, considering that it was they whoinstituted the in"unction case beore the !&C thus, it appears that they were raisingthis argument merely because they ailed to secure the airmative relies that theysought rom that court.

&hus, the September -, )((? resolution o respondent court reads2

W4E!E5O!E, the motion or reconsideration is denied or lacF o merit. &he!egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch :; is hereby ordered to issue a Writ o

E#ecution pursuant to this court>s resolution dated uly (, )((? granting thee#ecution pending appeal.)-

5rom the above resolutions o respondent court, petitioners iled the instant specialcivil action or certiorari. &he petition, iled on November )*, )((?, alleged that theCourt o %ppeals committed grave abuse o discretion in the ollowing2

a. In granting private respondent>s +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppealpursuant to an erroneous or incorrect provision o the !ules o Court

b. In entertaining a 3special reason3 interposed by private respondents,which was not even inceptually oered in evidence

c. In considering with unounded bias, petitioners> pending appeal withsaid respondent court as 3merely intended to delay3

d. In reasoning that the revised Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals cansupersede the !ules o Court

e. In assuming that possessory relies automatically vest upon private

respondents due to the dismissal o the in"unction case and

. In directing the !&C +anila, 'ranch :;, to issue a Writ o E#ecutionpursuant to the uly (, )((? !esolution.)

%nent the irst ground, petitioners allege that respondent court wrongly =uoted theprovisions o Section -, !ule ( o the !evised !ules o Court,)1and that thepertinent provisions are the second and third paragraphs which declare that ater thetrial court has lost "urisdiction, it is the appellate court in the e#ercise o its discretionand upon good reasons that may issue the motion or e#ecution pending appeal. &heymaintained that the 3special reason3 interposed by private respondents, i.e., that the

0ictoria &ennis Courts were illmaintained, was a bare allegation that was notproperly substantiated, because the letter o the tennis players to Secretary /aborwas not ormally submitted in evidence in the trial court.):+oreover, they declared,there was no 3"udgment3 or 3inal order3 to speaF o in the instant case because the!&C order dated %ugust :, )((* was still the sub"ect o an appeal that is pendingwith respondent court. &hey also assailed the conclusion o respondent court that theappeal was dilatory considering that petitioners had 3sever

Documents

Remedial Law Review Cases - Batch 3