Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lagrosas vs Bristol-Myers
RECEIVERSHIP
Aguilar vs Manila Banking Corporation
demand for payment of the market value of the car or, in the alternative, the
surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves the
relationship of debtor and creditor rather than employee-employer relations.
As such, the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. In
Basaya, Jr. v. Militante, Replevin is a possessory action, the gist of which is
the right of possession in the plaintiff. The primary relief sought therein is
the return of the property in specie wrongfully detained by another person. It
is an ordinary statutory proceeding to adjudicate rights to the title or
possession of personal property. The question of whether or not a party has
the right of possession over the property involved and if so, whether or not
the adverse party has wrongfully taken and detained said property as to
require its return to plaintiff, is outside the pale of competence of a labor
tribunal and beyond the field of specialization of Labor Arbiters.
SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS PONCE, and ELIZABETH PONCE,
Respondents.
Facts: Sometime in 1975, respondent spouses Atty. Jesus and Elizabeth
Ponce bought on installment a Holden Torana vehicle from C. R. Tecson
Enterprises. They executed a promissory note and a chattel mortgage on
the vehicle dated December 24, 1975 in favor of the C. R. Tecson
Enterprises to secure payment of the note. On the same date, C.R. Tecson
Enterprises, in turn, executed a deed of assignment of said promissory note
and chattel mortgage in favor of Filinvest Credit Corporation with the
conformity of respondent spouses. The latter were aware of the
endorsement of the note and the mortgage to Filinvest as they in fact
availed of its financing services to pay for the car. In 1976, respondent
spouses transferred and delivered the vehicle to Conrado R. Tecson by way
of sale with assumption of mortgage. Subsequently, in 1978, Filinvest
assigned all its rights and interest over the same promissory note and
chattel mortgage to petitioner Servicewide Specialists Inc. without notice to
respondent spouses. Due to the failure of respondent spouses to pay the
installments under the promissory note from October 1977 to March 1978,
and despite demands to pay the same or to return the vehicle petitioners
filed complaint for replevin with damages. Respondent spouses denied any
liability claiming they had already returned the car to Conrado Tecson
pursuant to the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Thus, they filed
a third party complaint against Conrado Tecson praying that in case they are
adjudged liable to petitioner, Conrado Tecson should reimburse them. RTC
found spouses guilty but was reversed by CA on the ground of absence of
notification on the assignment of PN and CM.
Issue: whether the assignment of a credit requires notice to the debtor in
order to bind him.
Held: Since the alienation by the respondent spouses of the vehicle
occurred prior to the assignment of credit to petitioner, it follows that the
former were not bound to obtain the consent of the latter as it was not yet
an assignee of the credit at the time of the alienation of the mortgaged
vehicle. When Tecson Enterprises assigned the promissory note and the
chattel mortgage to Filinvest, it was made with respondent spouses tacit
approval. When Filinvest in turn, as assignee, assigned it further to
petitioner, the latter should have notified the respondent spouses of the
assignment in order to bind them. This, they failed to do. Insofar as Filinvest
is concerned, the debtor is still respondent spouses because of the absence
of its consent to the sale. Worse, Filinvest was not even notified of such
sale. Having subsequently stepped into the shoes of Filinvest, petitioner
acquired the same rights as the former had against respondent spouses.
The defenses that could have been invoked by Filinvest against the
spouses can be successfully raised by petitioner. Therefore, for failure of
respondent spouses to obtain the consent of Filinvest thereto, the sale of
the vehicle to Conrado R. Tecson was not binding on the former. When the
credit was assigned by Filinvest to petitioner, respondent spouses stood on
record as the debtor-mortgagor.
KENNETH HAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ABE C. ANDRES, SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, DAVAO CITY RESPONDENT.
Facts: Complainant Hao is one of the defendants in a civil case for replevin
entitled "Zenaida Silver, doing trade and business under the name and style
ZHS Commercial v. Loreto Hao, Atty. Amado Cantos, Kenneth Hao and
John Does," pending before the RTC of Davao City. On October 17, 2005,
Judge Fuentes issued an Order of Seizure against 22 motor vehicles
allegedly owned by the complainant. Andres was able to seize 9 motor
vehicles. Hao in his complaint alleged that Andres seized the vehicles in an
oppressive manner. The cease and desist order against the seizure was
issued on October 21, 2005 when the counter-replevin bond was approved.
On October 24, 2005, 8 of 9 seized motor vehicles were missing. Andres
was found guilty of serious negligence in the custody of nine motor by the
investigating judge.
Issue: whether the implementation of replevin is proper.
Held: No. Pursuant to Rule 60, being an officer of the court, Andres must be
aware that there are well-defined steps provided in the Rules of Court
regarding the proper implementation of a writ of replevin and/or an order of
seizure. The Rules, likewise, is explicit on the duty of the sheriff in its
implementation. First, the rules provide that property seized under a
writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff. In
accordance with the said rules, Andres should have waited no less than five
days in order to give the complainant an opportunity to object to the
sufficiency of the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon, or require the
return of the seized motor vehicles by filing a counter-bond. This, he failed
to do. Silver was already in possession of the nine seized vehicles
immediately after seizure, or no more than three days after the taking of the
vehicles. Thus, Andres committed a clear violation of Section 6, Rule 60 of
the Rules of Court with regard to the proper disposal of the property. It
matters not that Silver was in possession of the seized vehicles merely for
safekeeping as stated in the depository receipts. The rule is clear that the
property seized should not be immediately delivered to the plaintiff, and the
sheriff must retain custody of the seized property for at least five days.
From the moment an order of delivery in replevin is executed by taking
possession of the property specified therein, such property is in
custodia legis. As legal custodian, it is Andres' duty to safekeep the
seized motor vehicles. Hence, when he passed his duty to safeguard
the motor vehicles to Silver, he committed a clear neglect of duty.
Despite the cease and desist order, Andres failed to return the motor
vehicles to their lawful owners. When a writ is placed in the hands of a
sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to
its mandate. However, the prompt implementation of an order of seizure
is called for only in instances where there is no question regarding the
right of the plaintiff to the property. Where there is such a question,
the prudent recourse for Andres is to desist from executing the order
and convey the information to his judge and to the plaintiff.
G.R. No. 165895
June 5, 2009
TERLYNGRACE
RIVERA, Petitioner
VARGAS, Respondent.
vs.
FLORENCIO
L.
bond within five (5) days from the date of seizure as provided in the Rules of
Court. Petitioner argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying her counterbond on the ground that it was filed
out of time. She contends that the mandatory five-day period did not
even begin to run in this case due to the improper service of the writ of
replevin, contrary to Section 4 of Rule 60.
Issue: Whether there is improver service of the writ of replevin.
Held: Yes. Replevin is one of the most ancient actions known to law, taking
its name from the object of its process. It originated in common law as a
remedy against the wrongful exercise of the right of distress for rent and,
according to some authorities, could only be maintained in such a case. But
by the weight of authority, the remedy is not and never was restricted to
cases of wrongful distress in the absence of any statutes relating to the
subject, but is a proper remedy for any unlawful taking. "Replevied," used in
its technical sense, means delivered to the owner, while the words "to
replevy" means to recover possession by an action of replevin. Replevin is
both a form of principal remedy and of provisional relief. It may refer
either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal
chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to
the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing
during the pendency of the action and to hold it pendente lite.28 The
action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines
nothing more than the right of possession. A person seeking a remedy
in an action for replevin must follow the course laid down in the
statute, since the remedy is penal in nature.34 When no attempt is made
to comply with the provisions of the law relating to seizure in this kind of
action, the writ or order allowing the seizure is erroneous and may be set
aside on motion35 by the adverse party. Be it noted, however, that a motion
to quash the writ of replevin goes to the technical regularity of
procedure, and not to the merits of the case36 in the principal action.
The process regarding the execution of the writ of replevin in Section
4 of Rule 60 is unambiguous: the sheriff, upon receipt of the writ of
replevin and prior to the taking of the property, must serve a copy
thereof to the adverse party (petitioner, in this case) together with the
application, the affidavit of merit, and the replevin bond. 37The reasons
are simple, i.e., to provide proper notice to the adverse party that his
property is being seized in accordance with the courts order upon
application by the other party, and ultimately to allow the adverse party to
take the proper remedy consequent thereto. If the writ was not served
upon the adverse party but was instead merely handed to a person
who is neither an agent of the adverse party nor a person authorized
to receive court processes on his behalf, the service thereof is
erroneous and is, therefore, invalid, running afoul of the statutory and
constitutional requirements. Under these circumstances, no right to seize
and to detain the property shall pass, the act of the sheriff being both
unlawful and unconstitutional. The RTC, however, denied the redelivery
bond for having been filed beyond the five-day mandatory period prescribed
in Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 60. 42 But since the writ was invalidly served,
petitioner is correct in contending that there is no reckoning point from which
the mandatory five-day period shall commence to run. The writ must also
satisfy proper service in order to be valid and effective: i.e. it should
be directed to the officer who is authorized to serve it; and it should be
served upon the person who not only has the possession or custody
of the property involved but who is also a party or agent of a party to
the action.
Navaro vs. Escobido GR No. 153788, November 27, 2009
FACTS: KARGO ENTERPRISES is in the business of, among others,
buying and selling motor vehicles, including hauling trucks and other heavy
equipment. Karen Go who is married to Glen Go filed a complaint
against Roger Navarro for the cause of action based on the lease
agreement entered into between the parties. The subject of the
controversy is the Fuso mounted with crane vehicle. Navarro delivered unto
plaintiff 6 post dated checks in the amount of P66,332 each which
represents the rentals of the vehicle. Unfortunately, 2 checks were
dishonerd by the bank. Karen Go demanded the balance which was due
against Navaro or to return the vehicle. A second complaint was then filed
by Karen Go which alleged almost the same allegations contained in the
first complaint except the subject vehicle and the date. Navaro then issued 3
post dated checks in the amount of P100,000 each but the third check was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. On October 12 and 14, 1998, the RTC
issued in both cases writs of replevin, as a result the Sheriff seized the 2
vehicle and delivered the same to the possession of Karen Go. In Navaros
motion both cases were consolidated. In its may 2008 order the RTC
dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint states no cause of
action. Karen Go filed a MR which was granted by the RTC. RTC denied
Navaros MR. Navaro filed a pettion for certiorari with the CA but the CA
affirmed the RTCs decision. Navaros MR was likewise been denied. In his
present petition, Navaro alleged that the complaints were premature
because no prior demand was made on him to comply with the
provisions of the lease agreements before the complaints for replevin
were filed.
ISSUE:Whether prior demand is necessary before a writ of replevin can be
issued
HELD: For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is
to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the
Rules, which states: Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond. The applicant must show by
his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the
facts:
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly
describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;(b) That the property
is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of
detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief;(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so
seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and(d) The actual
market value of the property.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in
double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned,
for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged,
and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover
from the applicant in the action. Nothing in these provisions which
requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the
property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior
demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin.
More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a prior
demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he
had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either
pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Navarros
position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore
totally unmeritorious.
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
DE Asis vs. CA [G.R. No. 127578. February 15, 1999]
FACTS: On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres, in her capacity as the
legal guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, brought an
action for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis, before the
RTC of Quezon City, alleging that Manuel de Asis is the father of Glen
Camil Andres de Asis, and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the
maintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. Manuel de asis
denied his paternity of the said minor and he cannot therefore be
required to provide support for him. On July 4, 1989, Vircel D. Andres,
through counsel, sent in a manifestation stating that Manuel de asis
made a judicial declaration that Glen Camil was not his child therefore
he is not entitle to support the child. With this judicial declaration, it is a
useless exercise to claim for support from Manuel. Based on the
circumstances, it will be practical that Vircel D. Andres will withdraw the
complaint subject to the condition that Manuel de asis will not file a counterclaim. RTC dismissed the case w/ prejudice. On September 7, 1995,
another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought against
Manuel A. de Asis, in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Asis,
represented by her legal guardian/mother, Vircel D. Andres. before the
Regional Trial Court of Kalookan, praying that judgment be rendered
ordering to pay the plaintiff the sum of not less than P2,000 per month for
every month since June 1, 1987 as support in arrears which defendant
failed to provide.To give plaintiff a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 to be
paid in advance on or before the 5th of each and every month;To give
plaintiff by way of support pendente lite, a monthly allowance of P5,000.00
per month, the first monthly allowance to start retroactively from the first day
Revised Penal Code provides that persons guilty of rape shall also be
sentenced to "acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him
from doing so," and "in every case to support the offspring." In the case
before us, compulsory acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is
not proper there being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears
that the accused is a married man. As pronounced by this Court in
People v. Guerrero,"the rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he cannot
be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, should there be any,
as his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate." Consequently, that portion of
the judgment under review is accordingly deleted. In any case, we sustain
that part ordering the accused to support the child as it is in accordance with
law.
Lopez vs Court of Appeals
Facts: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon a decision declaring the
nullity of marriage between Cherry Pie Lopez and Alberto Lopez a.k.a Cesar
Lopez (petitioner). The decision became final and executory based on a
certification1 dated January 5, 2001. Petitioner moved to reconsider2 the
support aspect of the decision but was denied by Order of January 26,
2001. On February 8, 2001, the RTC, acting on petitioners Notice of
Appeal4 filed on February 7, 2001, gave it due course and directed the
transmittal of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals "as soon as
possible." Petitioner paid before the RTC a total of Sixty (P60.00) Pesos as
docket fees as shown by Official Receipt. For petitioners failure to pay the
full amount of P520.00 docket fees, the Court of Appeals, by Resolution of
March 19, 2001,6 dismissed his appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration7 of the appellate courts March 19, 2001 Resolution, but it
was denied by Resolution of April 26, 2001 on the grounds that the motion
did not contain an affidavit or proof of service and that it did not state on its
face the material dates determinative of its timeliness.
Issue: Whether or not the aspect of support is final and executory.
Held: The dismissal of the petition notwithstanding, petitioner is not without
remedy. For as what he seeks to assail is the amount of support he
was adjudged to provide, he can file a motion with the trial court for its
modification since a judgment granting support never becomes final.
Montefalcon vs. Vasquez [G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008]
FACTS: In 1999, petitioner Dolores P. Montefalcon filed a Complaint for
acknowledgment and support against respondent Ronnie S. Vasquez
before the RTC of Naga City. Alleging that her son Laurence is the
illegitimate child of Vasquez, she prayed that Vasquez be obliged to
give support to co-petitioner Laurence Montefalcon, whose certificate
of live birth he signed as father. According to petitioners, Vasquez only
gave a total of P19,000 as support for Laurence since Laurence was born in
1993. Vasquez allegedly also refused to give him regular school allowance
despite repeated demands. Petitioner Dolores added that she and Vasquez
are not legally married, and that Vasquez has his own family. Vasquez was
declared in default for failure to answer the service of summons
(substituted). The court ordered Vasquez to acknowledge Laurence
and to pay P 5000 monthly. In the same year, Vasquez surfaced. He filed a
notice of appeal to which petitioners opposed. Appeal was granted by the
court. Before the appellate court, he argued that the trial court erred in trying
and deciding the case as it "never" acquired jurisdiction over his person, as
well as in awarding P5,000-per-month support, which was allegedly
"excessive and exorbitant." The appellate court granted Vasquezs
contention.
ISSUE: Whether he is obliged to give support to co-petitioner Laurence.
HELD: YES. Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines mandates that
illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children. Under Article 172, appearing in the civil
register or a final order; or (2) by admission of filiation in a public document
or private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned; or in
default of these two, by open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child or by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws. Laurence's record of birth is an authentic, relevant and
admissible piece of evidence to prove paternity and filiation. Vasquez did
not deny that Laurence is his child with Dolores. He signed as father in
Laurence's certificate of live birth, a public document. He supplied the data
entered in it. Thus, it is a competent evidence of filiation as he had a hand in
its preparation. In fact, if the child had been recognized by any of the modes
in the first paragraph of Article 172, there is no further need to file any action
for acknowledgment because any of said modes is by itself a consummated
act. As filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of
obligation. Petitioners were able to prove that Laurence needs
Vasquez's support and that Vasquez is capable of giving such support.
Dolores testified that she spent around P200,000 for Laurence; she spends
P8,000 a month for his schooling and their subsistence. She told the lower
court Vasquez was earning US$535 monthly based on his January 10, 2000
contract of employment with Fathom Ship Management and his seafarer
information sheet. That income, if converted at the prevailing rate, would be
more than sufficient to cover the monthly support for Laurence. Under
Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his
illegitimate child. The amount is variable. There is no final judgment
thereof as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the
giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or
increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of
the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the
person obliged to support. Support comprises everything indispensable
for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and
transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. Under the
premises, the award of P5,000 monthly support to Laurence is reasonable,
and not excessive nor exorbitant.
Interpleader
G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986
MARCELO
A.
MESINA, petitioner, vs.
THE
HONORABLE
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, in
his capacity as Judge of Regional Trial Court Manila (Branch VIII),
JOSE GO, and ALBERT UY, respondents.
Facts: Respondent Jose Go, on December 29, 1983, purchased from
Associated Bank Cashier's Check for P800,000.00. Unfortunately, Jose
Go left said check on the top of the desk of the bank manager when he
left the bank. The bank manager entrusted the check for safekeeping
to a bank official, a certain Albert Uy, who had then a visitor in the
person of Alexander Lim. Uy had to answer a phone call on a nearby
telephone after which he proceeded to the men's room. When he
returned to his desk, his visitor Lim was already gone. When Jose Go
inquired for his cashier's check from Albert Uy, the check was not in his
folder and nowhere to be found. The latter advised Jose Go to go to the
bank to accomplish a "STOP PAYMENT" order, which suggestion Jose
Go immediately followed. He also executed an affidavit of loss. Albert Uy
went to the police to report the loss of the check, pointing to the person of
Alexander Lim as the one who could shed light on it. The check was
immediately dishonored by Associated Bank by sending it back to Prudential
Bank, with the words "Payment Stopped" stamped on it. Several days later,
respondent Associated Bank received a letter, dated January 9, 1984, from
a certain Atty. Lorenzo Navarro demanding payment on the cashier's
check in question, which was being held by his client. He however
refused to reveal the name of his client and threatened to sue, if
payment is not made. On February 1, 1984, police sent a letter to the
Manager of the Prudential Bank, Escolta Branch, requesting assistance in
Identifying the person who tried to encash the check but said bank refused
saying that it had to protect its client's interest and the Identity could only be
revealed with the client's conformity. Unsure of what to do on the matter,
respondent Associated Bank on February 2, 1984 filed an action for
Interpleader naming as respondent, Jose Go and one John Doe, Atty.
Navarro's then unnamed client. Respondent bank moved to amend its
complaint, having been notified for the first time of the name of Atty.
Navarro's client and substituted Mesina for John Doe. Mesina alleged
that he came to possess the check when it was paid to him by
Alexander Lim in a "certain transaction" but refused to elucidate
further. The issued warrant of arrest was not served to Alberto Uy due to
successful evasion. On the pretrial conference of interpleader case, it
was disclosed that the "John Doe" impleaded as one of the defendants
is actually petitioner Mesina. Mesina move to dismiss the case on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and in view of the absence of an order
to litigate, failure to state a cause of action and lack of personality to
sue but was denied. Petitioner was declared in default for the period which
he is required to file an answer already expired.
Issue: Whether interpleader suit is proper when a party is earlier sued on
the same claim.
Held: Yes. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he is a holder
in due course and for consideration or value as shown by the
13, 1984 order and setting aside the order for MISSIONs deposit of the
amounts it had previously received from Eternal Gardens.In G.R. No. 73569
it appeared that on January 11, 1985, MISSION filed a motion to dismiss the
Interpleader and the claims of the Maysilo Estate and the Intervenors and to
order the Eternal Gardens to comply with its Land Management with
MISSION. On January 28, 1985, the trial court passed a
resolution,dismissing the interpleader and consolidating the interventions
filed by Pedro Banon etc. with the Maysilo estate represented by its receiver
Arturo Salientes. The heirs of the Maysilo Estate moved for reconsideration
of the order of dismissal, which was granted by the trial judge.A motion for
Writ of Execution of the resolution of January 28, 1985 was filed by
MISSION. This was denied on June 25, 1985. The said court further set the
case for pre-trial and trial on July 18, 1985.It was elevated on certiorari and
mandamus to the Intermediate Appellate Court , docketed as AC-G.R. Sp
No. 06696 "North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventists,
vs. Hon. Antonia Corpus-Macandog Presiding Judge, Branch CXX,
Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks
Corporation, and Heirs of Vicente Singson Encarnacion It was raffled to the
Second Special Division. MISSION assailed the February 14, 1985 and
June 25, 1985 orders as violative of due process and attended by grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The petition was
dismissed in the decision of said Appellate Court. MISSION challenged the
decision in the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 73569. In its resolution dated
June 11, 1986, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review on
certiorari for lack of merit. Said resolution has become final and executory
on July 16, 1986.Earlier in 1983, the heirs of the late spouses Vicente
Singson Encarnacion and Lucila Conde filed Civil Case No. C-11836 for
quieting of title with Branch CXXII, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City,
where petitioner and private respondent were named as defendants.Said
case is still pending in the lower Court. In the case at bar, G.R. No. 73794,
MISSION, filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court
docketed as AC-G.R. No. 04869 praying that the aforementioned Orders of
February 13, 1984 and October 26, 1984 of the Regional Trial Court be set
aside and that an order be issued to deposit in court or in a depositor
trustee bank of any and all payments, plus interest thereon, due the private
respondent MISSION under the Land Development Agreement, said
amounts deposited to be paid to whomever may be found later to be entitled
thereto, with costs. The Intermediate Appelate Court dismissed the petition
in its decision on February 27, 1985.In its Resolution promulgated on
September 5, 1985, the Court however, reversed its decision ordering
MISSION to deposit whatever is due from it under the Land
Development Agreement with a refutable bank to be designated by the
court to be the depositary trustee of the amounts to be paid whoever
shall be found entitled thereto.Eternal Gardens moved for a
reconsideration of the above decision but it was denied for lack of
merit. Hence, this petition. On July 8,1987, the Third Division of this Court
issued resolution requiring the parties to file a memoranda and to require
MISSSION to deposit its accruing installments within 10 days from notice
with a refutable commercial bank in a savings deposit account in the name
of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether judicial deposit made by Mission as one of the parties in
interpleader case filed by eternal is valid.
HELD: Under the circumstances, there appears to be no plausible reason
for petitioner's objections to the deposit of the amounts in litigation after
having asked for the assistance of the lower court by filing a complaint for
interpleader where the deposit of aforesaid amounts is not only required by
the nature of the action but is a contractual obligation of the petitioner under
the Land Development Program. As correctly observed by the Court of
Appeals, the essence of an interpleader, aside from the disavowal of
interest in the property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the
deposit of the property or funds in controversy with the court. it is a
rule founded on justice and equity: "that the plaintiff may not continue
to benefit from the property or funds in litigation during the pendency
of the suit at the expense of whoever will ultimately be decided as
entitled thereto. The case at bar was elevated to the Court of Appeals on
certiorari with prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Said appellate court
found that more than twenty million pesos are involved; so that on interest
alone for savings or time deposit would be considerable, now accruing in
favor of the Eternal Gardens. Finding that such is violative of the very
essence of the complaint for interpleader as it clearly runs against the
interest of justice in this case, the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for
finding that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion which
requires correction by the requirement that a deposit of said amounts
should be made to a bank approved by the Court.
10
Declaratory Relief
[G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008]
EUFEMIA ALMEDA and ROMEL ALMEDA, Petitioners, vs. BATHALA
MARKETING INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.
Facts: Sometime in May 1997, respondent Bathala Marketing Industries,
Inc., as lessee, represented by its president Ramon H. Garcia, renewed
its Contract of Lease with Ponciano L. Almeda (Ponciano), as lessor,
husband of petitioner Eufemia and father of petitioner Romel Almeda .
Under the said contract, Ponciano agreed to lease a portion of the Almeda
Compound in Makati City. for a term of four (4) years from May 1, 1997
unless sooner terminated as provided in the contract. The contract of
lease contained pertinent provisions which gave rise to the instant
case, wherein, the lessee should pay additional rental or charge in
case there is increased of tax rate imposed on the said building and in
case an extraordinary inflation or devaluation of Philippine Currency
should supervene, the value of Philippine peso at the time of the
establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment. During the
effectivity of the contract, Ponciano died. Thereafter, respondent dealt with
petitioners. Petitioners informed respondents that they will increased
the rental rate pursuant to imposition of vat and extraordinary inflation
or deflation as indicated in the contract of lease. Respondents refused
to pay the Vat and adjusted rentals. The respondent instituted an
action for declaratory relief for purposes of determining the correct
interpretation of conditions of the lease contract to prevent damage
and prejudice. Petitioners later moved for the dismissal of the
declaratory relief case for being an improper remedy considering that
respondent was already in breach of the obligation and that the case
would not end the litigation and settle the rights of the parties. The trial
court, however, was not persuaded, and consequently, denied the motion.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents on the grounds that: the burden
of paying the VAT was not a new tax that would call for application and
the demand in rental increase, there being no extraordinary inflation or
devaluation. The respondent made payment of the rental adjustment
demanded by petitioners, thus, the court ordered the restitution by the
latter to the former of the amounts paid, notwithstanding the wellestablished rule that in an action for declaratory relief, other than a
declaration of rights and obligations, affirmative relief are not sought
by or awarded to the parties. On appeal, CA affirmed decision of RTC,
however, it found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting
affirmative relief to the respondent, particularly the restitution of its excess
payment.
Issue: Whether the action for declaratory relied is proper.
Held: Yes. Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person
interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive
order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity
arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for
a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. General rule that such an
action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available
under the circumstances. Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an
action for declaratory relief, as follows: 1) the subject matter of the
controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; 2) the terms of said
documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
11
Issue: Whether or not the decision of CFI granting the declaratory relief is
valid? And whether or not the decision of CA affirming the decision of the
RTC that the foreclosure is invalid?
Held: An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance before breach
or violation thereof. The purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed,
contract, etc. for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to
settle issues arising from its alleged breach. It may be entertained only
before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it
refers. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to
the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer
assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more
jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject, i.e., the statute,
deed, contract, etc., has already been infringed or transgressed before the
institution of the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a
cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party,
there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify short of a
judgment or final order. Here, an infraction of the mortgage terms had
already taken place before the filing of Civil Case No. C-7496. Thus,
the CFI lacked jurisdiction when it took cognizance of the case in
1979. And in the absence of jurisdiction, its decision was void and
without legal effect. Nonetheless, the petition must fail. Article 1142 of
the Civil Code is clear. A mortgage action prescribes after ten years. An
action to enforce a right arising from a mortgage should be enforced within
ten years from the time the right of action accrues. [6] Otherwise, it will be
barred by prescription and the mortgage creditor will lose his rights under
the mortgage. The respondents institution of Civil Case No. C-7496 in the
CFI on March 16, 1979 did not interrupt the running of the ten-year
prescriptive period because, as discussed above, the court lacked
jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief.
Velarde vs. Social Justice Society [GR 159357, 28 April 2004]
Facts: On 28 January 2003, the Social Justice Society (SJS) filed a
Petition for Declaratory Relief (SJS Petition) before the RTC-Manila
against Mariano Mike Z. Velarde, together with His Eminence, Jaime
Cardinal Sin, Executive Minister Erao Manalo, Brother Eddie
Villanueva and Brother Eliseo F. Soriano as co-respondents. SJS, a
registered political party, sought the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and
state; and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts
of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or
urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a specified
candidate. Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period [to file
an Answer], a Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, Executive Minister Erao
Manalo and Bro. Mike Velarde, filed their Motions to Dismiss. While His
Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, filed a Comment and Bro. Eli Soriano, filed
an Answer within the extended period and similarly prayed for the dismissal
of the Petition. All sought the dismissal of the Petition on the common
grounds that it does not state a cause of action and that there is no
justiciable controversy. They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of
advisement, which was closely followed by another Order denying all the
Motions to Dismiss. Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive
Minister Erao Manalo moved to reconsider the denial. His Eminence Jaime
Cardinal L. Sin, asked for extension to file memorandum. Only Bro. Eli
Soriano complied with the first Order by submitting his Memorandum. The
Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for Reconsideration
filed by Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister
Erao Manalo, which raised no new arguments other than those already
considered in the motions to dismiss. After narrating the above incidents,
the trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the Petition, because in
praying for a determination as to whether the actions imputed to the
respondents are violative of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental
Law, [the Petition] has raised only a question of law. It then proceeded
to a lengthy discussion of the issue raised in the Petition the separation of
church and state even tracing, to some extent, the historical background
of the principle. Through its discourse, the trial court opined at some
point that the [e]ndorsement of specific candidates in an election to
any public office is a clear violation of the separation clause. After its
essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to include a
dispositive portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde and Soriano
filed separate Motions for Reconsideration which were denied by the lower
court. Velarde filed the petition for review.
Issue [1]: Whether SJS has legal interest in filing the Petition for
declaratory relief.
Held [1]: Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a
material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument,
as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved.
Velarde alleged that [i]n seeking declaratory relief as to the constitutionality
of an act of a religious leader to endorse, or require the members of the
religious flock to vote for a specific candidate, herein Respondent SJS has
no legal interest in the controversy; it has failed to establish how the
resolution of the proffered question would benefit or injure it. Parties
bringing suits challenging the constitutionality of a law, an act or a
statute must show not only that the law [or act] is invalid, but also
that [they have] sustained or [are] in immediate or imminent danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not
merely that [they] suffer thereby in some indefinite way. They must
demonstrate that they have been, or are about to be, denied some right or
privilege to which they are lawfully entitled, or that they are about to be
subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act
complained of. First, parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove that
they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money
raised by taxation. A taxpayers action may be properly brought only when
there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. Herein,
there is no allegation, whether express or implied, that taxpayers money is
being illegally disbursed. Second, there was no showing in the Petition
for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a political party or its members as
registered voters would be adversely affected by the alleged acts of
Velarde, et al., if the question at issue was not resolved. There was no
allegation that SJS had suffered or would be deprived of votes due to
the acts imputed to the Velarde et al.. Neither did it allege that any of
its members would be denied the right of suffrage or the privilege to
be voted for a public office they are seeking. Finally, the allegedly keen
interest of its thousands of members who are citizens-taxpayers-registered
voters is too general and beyond the contemplation of the standards set by
our jurisprudence. Not only is the presumed interest impersonal in
character; it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy
the requirement of standing.
Issue [2]: Whether the constitutional issue in the SJS Petition raises an
issue of transcendental significance or paramount importance to the people,
so as to allow the cognizance of the Petition, even sans legal standing.
Held [2]: In not a few cases, the Court has liberalized the locus standi
requirement when a petition raises an issue of transcendental significance
or paramount importance to the people. Herein, the Court deemed the
constitutional issue raised in the SJS Petition to be of paramount interest to
the Filipino people. The issue did not simply concern a delineation of the
separation between church and state, but ran smack into the governance of
our country. The issue was both transcendental in importance and novel in
nature, since it had never been decided before. The Court, thus, called for
Oral Argument to determine with certainty whether it could resolve the
constitutional issue despite the barren allegations in the SJS Petition as well
as the abbreviated proceedings in the court below. Much to its chagrin,
however, counsels for the parties -- particularly for SJS -- made no
satisfactory allegations or clarifications that would supply the deficiencies
hereinabove discussed. Hence, even if the Court would exempt the case
from the stringent locus standi requirement, such heroic effort would be
futile because the transcendental issue cannot be resolved anyway.
G.R. No. 165571
January 20, 2009
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK
and
EQUITABLE
PCI
BANK, Petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION EN BANC, ASB HOLDINGS, INC., ASB REALTY
CORPORATION, ASB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (formerly
TIFFANY TOWER REALTY CORPORATION), ASB LAND INC., ASB
FINANCE, INC., MAKATI HOPE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, INC., BEL-AIR
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, WINCHESTER TRADING, INC., VYL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GERICK HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
and NEIGHBORHOOD HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents.
12
Facts: Petitioners Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Equitable PCI Bank
are members of the consortium of creditor banks constituted pursuant to the
Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) 6 dated May 29, 1989, as amended, by and
between Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation-Trust and Investments
Division, acting as trustee for the consortium, and ASB Development
Corporation (ASBDC, formerly Tiffany Tower Realty Corporation). Other
members of the consortium include Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank), Prudential Bank, Union Bank of the Philippines, and United
Coconut Planters Bank. Private respondents ASB Holdings, Inc., ASBDC,
ASB Land, Inc., ASB Finance, Inc., Makati Hope Christian School, Inc., BelAir Holdings Corporation, Winchester Trading, Inc., VYL Holdings
Corporation, and Neighborhood Holdings, Inc. (ASB Group) are
corporations engaged in real estate development. The ASB Group is owned
by Luke C. Roxas.7 Under the MTI, petitioners granted a loan of PhP
1,081,000,000 to ASBDC secured by a mortgage of five parcels of land with
improvements. On May 2, 2000, private respondents filed with the SEC a
verified petition for rehabilitation with prayer for suspension of actions and
proceedings pending rehabilitation pursuant to Presidential Decree No. (PD)
902-A, as amended. The case was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-00-6609.
Private respondents stated that they possess sufficient properties to cover
their obligations but foresee inability to pay them within a period of one year.
They cited the sudden non-renewal and/or massive withdrawal by creditors
of their loans to ASB Holdings, the glut in the real estate market, severe
drop in the sale of real properties, peso devaluation, and decreased investor
confidence in the economy which resulted in the non-completion of and
failure to sell their projects and default in the servicing of their credits as
they fell due. Private respondents mentioned through Creditors Committee
composed of representatives of individual creditors appointed a Comptroller.
Private respondents stated that the Comptroller, upon instruction from the
Creditors Committee, withheld approval of payments of obligations in the
ordinary course of business such as those due to contractors, unless Roxas
agrees to the payment of interest and other arrangements. Private
respondents believed that said conditions would eventually harm the
general body of their creditors. Private respondents prayed for the
suspension of payments to creditors while working out the final terms of a
rehabilitation plan with all the parties concerned. The SEC issued an order
of suspension for 60 days all actions for claims against the ASB Group,
enjoining the latter from disposing its properties in any manner except in the
ordinary course of business and from paying outstanding liabilities, and
appointed Atty. Monico V. Jacob as interim receiver of the ASB Group but
later replaced by Atty. Fortunato Cruz as interim receiver. The consortium of
creditor banks, which included petitioners prayed for the dismissal of said
petition. Upon motion by the ASB Group, the suspension period was
extended through an order and creditor banks appealed by filing before the
SEC en banc a Petition for Review on Certiorari with application for a
temporary restraining order.
Held: Petitioners impute error on the part of the SEC in appointing an
interim receiver since, allegedly, the requirements for it have not been met.
Petitioners, however, assume that private respondents were not entitled to
file a petition for rehabilitation. As previously discussed, private respondents
may file a petition for rehabilitation for being technically insolvent. Once the
petition is filed, the appointment of an interim receiver becomes automatic.
Petitioners assert that there two kinds of receivers that can be appointed: a
rehabilitation receiver or an interim receiver. A rehabilitation receiver under
PD 902-A, Sec. 6 may only be appointed when there is a showing that (1)
the receiver is necessary in order to preserve the rights of the partieslitigants; and/or (2) in order to protect the interest of the investing public and
creditors. In contrast, the appointment of an interim receiver is automatic
from the time the petition for rehabilitation is filed; there are no other
standards that need to be met. According to Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a petition for rehabilitation does
not necessarily result in the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver. 20 Prior
to the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver or management committee,
as the case may be, the right of secured creditors to foreclose mortgages
cannot be denied. Also, since PD 902-A does not provide for the
appointment of an interim receiver, then the Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Recovery, an administrative issuance, went beyond the law it
seeks to implement. As found by the appellate court, the appointment of an
interim receiver should be understood as a necessary and urgent step to
protect the interests of both creditors and stockholders of the petitioning
corporations, particularly the assets and business operations during the
pendency of the proceedings, and to ensure the viability and success of the
rehabilitation plan as eventually implemented.
13