Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Guy vs. Court of Appeals Issues: (1) whether respondents are guilty of forum member - Gilbert Guy. Moreover, he failed to establish
shopping; and (2) whether they are entitled to the by clear and convincing evidence his ownership of the
Facts: The instant controversies arose from a family injunctive relief granted in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. shares of stock in question. The Court of Appeals then
dispute. Gilbert Guy is the son of Francisco and Simny held there was an urgent necessity to issue an
Guy. Geraldine, Gladys and Grace are his sisters. The Held: A party is guilty of forum shopping when he injunctive writ in order to prevent serious damage to
family feud involves the ownership and control of repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in the rights of respondents and Northern Islands.
20,160 shares of stock of Northern Islands Co., Inc. different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sales of substantially founded on the same transactions and the Molina vs. Court of Appeals
various home appliances bearing the 3-D trademark. same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in, or The facts, as culled from the parties' pleadings, are as
Northern Islands is a family-owned corporation already resolved adversely by some other court. follows:
organized by spouses Francisco and respondent Simny
Guy and incorporated in said corporation was Lincoln In their petition, respondents prayed for the annulment On May 2, 1996, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published
Continental Development Corporation, Inc. as a holding of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC a news item, which reads in part:
company of the 50% shares of stock of Northern Islands after the expiration of the TRO issued by the Tenth
in trust for their three (3) daughters, respondents Division of the Court of Appeals. Evidently, this relief is PACC coddled GO,
Geraldine, Gladys and Grace. Sometime in December not identical with the relief sought by respondents in 2 NBI execs claim
1986, upon instruction of spouses Guy, Atty. Andres CA-G.R. SP No. 85069. Clearly, the second element of By Teddy Molina
Gatmaitan, president of Lincoln Continental, indorsed in litis pendentia the identity of reliefs sought - is lacking and Juliet Pascual
blank Stock Certificate No. 132 (covering 8,400 shares) in the two petitions filed by respondents with the PDI Northern Luzon Bureau
and Stock Certificate No. 133 (covering 11,760 shares) appellate court. Thus, we rule that no grave abuse of
and delivered them to Simny. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
xxx xxx xxx
may be attributed to the Court of Appeals for giving due
Spouses Guys found that their son Gilbert has been course to respondent's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104.
disposing of the assets of their corporations without NBI agents reportedly raided a vacation
authority. In order to protect such assets, Sinmy On the second issue, for a party to be entitled to an house in San Fernando, La Union, owned by
surrendered the two stock certificates to Emilia injunctive writ, he must show that there exists a right to Raymundo Armovit, Go's lawyer, in
Tabugadir and then registered it in the names of be protected and that the acts against which the September. They missed Go, who left the
respondent sisters. injunction is directed are violative of this right. In house hours before the agents came.
granting the respondent's application for injunctive
Adding insult to injury, during a special meeting of the relief and making the injunction permanent, the Court The source said Go was also in Vigan in
stockholders of Northern Islands, everybody except of Appeals (Seventh Division) found that they have November, during which he attended the
Gilbert was elected as officers. This development shown their clear and established right to the disputed wedding anniversary of a movie couple. . . . 3
started the warfare between Gilbert and his sisters. 20,160 shares of stock because: (1) they have physical
possession of the two stock certificates equivalent to On May 3, 1996, the same newspaper reported that:
On November 18, 2004, Gilbert filed with this Court a the said number of shares; (2) Lincoln Continental is a
petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 165849, mere trustee of the Guy family; and (3) respondents NBI exec says Go
alleging that the Court of Appeals (Eighth Division), in constitute a majority of the board of directors of tipped off by PACC
granting an injunctive relief in favor of respondents, Northern Islands, and accordingly have management By Teddy Molina
committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack and control of the company.. The appellate court then and Juliet Pascual
or in excess of jurisdiction. The petition also alleges that ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of PDI Northern Luzon Bureau
respondents resorted to forum shopping. discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction in favor of Guy. The writ actually reduced the
membership of Northern Islands board to just one
2
AN OFFICIAL of the National Bureau of findings of the Provincial Prosecutor and directed the THE ATTACHED ORDERS; 2.) THE SEAL OF
Investigation in Northern Luzon accused latter to withdraw the Informations filed. THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT BE
the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission of IDENTIFIED FROM THE COPIES SUBMITTED;
leaking out to Rolito Go a planned raid by However, the RTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur denied the 3) PETITIONERS DID NOT ATTACH COPIES OF
NBI agents on a vacation house in San motion to withdraw the indictments on the ground that ALL PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS; AND 4.)
Fernando, La Union, where the convicted there was probable cause for the filing of the THE JUDGE OF THE LOWER COURT WAS NOT
killer was hiding at the time. Informations. Petitioners moved to reconsider the IMPLEADED, AND COMPLETELY
denial, but this motion was similarly denied. DISREGARDING THE MERITS OF THE
The raiders belonging to the NBI Special PETITION.8
Operations Group missed Go but found Petitioners then elevated the case to the Court of
some of his personal belongings near the Appeals via a special civil action for certiorari, docketed Simply stated, the issue is: Did the Court of Appeals
house's swimming pool, the source, who as CA-G.R. SP No. 54397. commit a reversible error of law in dismissing the
asked not to be identified said. petition? We find that it did.
On September 30, 1999, the appellate court resolved
This happened in September at the the case as follows: Petitioners contend, firstly, that they should not be
vacation home of Go's lawyer, Raymundo faulted for such technical defects as the failure to
Armovit, or eight months before the PACC WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the indicate the authority of the certifying officer or the
arrested him on Tuesday in Lubao, petition is hereby DISMISSED. inscrutable imprint of the trial court's seal because they
Pampanga. did not have a hand in the preparation of the
documents. After all, they only relied in good faith on
SO ORDERED.7
"After the La Union raid, it was hard to track the authority and diligence of the court personnel who
Go because he was moving as if he was prepared and authenticated the subject documents,
The Court of Appeals found that the copies of the
receiving advice," the source further claimed. . considering that said personnel are presumed to know
assailed orders of the trial court were purportedly
.4 the procedural and technical requirements and because
certified, but there was no showing whatsoever of the
of the presumption that official duty has been regularly
authority of the person who certified the same.
As a consequence, private respondent Raymundo performed. According to petitioners, it was too harsh
Moreover, the seal of the trial court could not be
Armovit filed a complaint for libel against petitioners, and arbitrary for the Court of Appeals to fault them for
identified on the copies of said orders. Furthermore, the
alleging that they caused to be published reports that the oversight committed by the trial court personnel.
petition was not accompanied by all the pleadings and
maliciously accused him of harboring and/or concealing documents pertinent thereto.
a convicted murderer. Second, petitioners aver that their failure to attach the
pleadings and documents relevant to the petition is
Petitioners then moved for reconsideration, but this
In a resolution dated October 31, 1996, the Provincial immaterial as the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases,
was likewise denied.
Prosecutor of Ilocos Sur found probable cause and has given due course to similarly faulty petitions in the
recommended the filing of an Information for libel interests of equity and justice and merely directed that
Hence, the instant petition, grounded on the allegation the lacking pleadings and documents be attached.
against petitioners.5 Accordingly, on November 28,
that:
1996, two Informations for libel were filed with the RTC
of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.6 Lastly, petitioners claim that they did not err if they
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN only mentioned in the caption of the petition the trial
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI court and not the trial court judge. After all, it is clear
On December 12, 1996, petitioners sought a review of
AND PROHIBITION ON MERE from the enumeration of parties against whom or
the resolution dated October 31, 1996 by the Office of
TECHNICALITIES SUCH AS: 1.) PETITIONERS against which a petition for certiorari may be filed,
the Regional State Prosecutor. The latter reversed the
FAILED TO SHOW THE AUTHORITY OF THE namely, any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
PERSON WHO CERTIFIED THE COPIES OF or quasi-judicial functions in Rule 65, Section 19 of the
3
Rules of Court that they need not implead the officer or presumption in petitioners' favor that they followed the court of its authority. No right of respondent is
the trial court judge who committed the grave abuse of pertinent rules on attaching certified copies of the prejudiced or adversely affected.
discretion, amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction. orders subject of their petition below. As private
respondent failed to show evidence to rebut this Lastly, it is not required under Rule 65, Section 1 of the
Instead of addressing the issue and the petitioners' presumption, the presumption must stand. Rules of Court that the trial judge himself be impleaded
arguments, private respondent's submission focuses on in a petition for certiorari. The rule clearly states that a
the merits of the libel case. Thus, we are unable to agree We likewise rule that in the present case, the alleged petition for certiorari may be filed against the tribunal,
with his contentions insofar as they lack direct failure to attach all pleadings and documents is not a board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
pertinence to the present petition. sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. In appropriate functions.15 The inclusion of the tribunal, which issued
cases, the courts may liberally construe procedural the decision, as nominal party, was substantially
A litigation is a contest in which each contending party rules in order to meet and advance the cause of complied with. When petitioners mentioned the
fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue substantial justice.13 We have held that lapses in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive literal observation of a procedural rule will be they also referred necessarily to the judge who issued
all imperfections of form and technicalities, asks that overlooked when they do not involve public policy, the assailed resolutions.
justice be done on the merits.10 Hence, Rule 1, Section when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen
611 of the Rules of Court mandates that rules of accident, when they have not prejudiced the adverse WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
procedure shall be liberally interpreted. In the instant party, nor deprived the court of its authority.14 In the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
case, we agree with petitioners that the Court of instant case, petitioners' failure to append: (1) herein 54397, dated September 30, 1999 and May 2, 2000
Appeals erred in stressing too much petitioners' failure respondent's Answer to the Petition for Review filed on are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is
to comply with technicalities. We cannot attribute to January 2, 1997; (2) petitioners' Memorandum filed on hereby directed to reinstate the petition for certiorari
petitioners the perceived defects on the attached copies April 28, 1997; and (3) respondent's Memorandum filed filed by petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397, with
of the trial court's orders because petitioners did not on May 16, 1997, all of which were mentioned in the dispatch.
have control over their preparation. Moreover, Rule petition for certiorari before the appellate court do not
131, Section 3 (ff)12 of the Rules of Court lays the touch on public policy, nor do they deprive the appellate SO ORDERED.
NYK International vs. NLRC as required by the Rules of Court, as well as other paragraph 3 of the above-quoted guidelines. Hence, no
pleadings and documents. MR denied. Hence this error may be ascribed to the Court of Appeals in
Facts: Publico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal petition for review. dismissing the petition for certiorari outright.
against petitioner NYK and its manager, petitioner petitioners here have not shown any compelling reason
Cathy Ng. LA rendered decision holding the dismissal ISSUE: WON CA should have given due course to the for us to relax the rule. Petitioners are hereby reminded
illegal, NLRC affirmed. petition that the right to file a special civil action of certiorari is
neither a natural right nor a part of due process. A writ
petitioners impugned the NLRC decision by way of a HELD: of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as
special civil action of certiorari filed before the Court of a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of
Appeals ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting Section 1 of Rule 65,[10] 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
judicial discretion.[11] Hence, he who seeks a writ of
to lack or excess of jurisdiction to public respondent requires that the petition shall be accompanied by a
certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and
NLRC for affirming the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. the certified true copy of the judgment or order subject
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and
appellate court dismissed the petition outright for non- thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and
the Rules.
compliance with Section 1 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules documents relevant and pertinent thereto. the disputed
of Civil Procedure as the petition was merely document although stamped as certified true copy is not Bulawan vs. Aquende
accompanied by a certified xerox copy of the assailed an authenticated original of such certified true copy, but
NLRC decision, instead of a certified true copy thereof only a xerox copy thereof, in contravention of
4
FACTS: On 1 March 1995,Bulawan filed a complaint for having received no summons or notice thereof, nor was judgment may be annulled on the grounds of extrinsic
annulment of title,reconveyanceand damages against he aware of any adverse claim as no notice of lis fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Fraud is extrinsic where it
Lourdes Yap (Yap) and the Register of Deeds before the pendens was inscribed on the title. prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting
trial court docketed as Civil Case No. 9040.Bulawan his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon
claimed that she is the owner of Lot No. 1634-B of Psd- On 2 August 2002,Aquende filed a Third Party Claim matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the
153847 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) against the writ of execution because it affected his manner in which it is procured.The overriding
No. 13733 having bought the property from its owners, property and, not being a party in Civil Case No. 9040, consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the
brothers Santos and FranciscoYaptengco(Yaptengco he argued that he is not bound by the trial courts 26 fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a
brothers), who claimed to have inherited the property November 1996 Decision. In a letter dated 5 August party from having his day in court.On the other hand,
from Yap Chin Cun. Bulawan alleged that Yap claimed 2002,the Clerk of Court said that a Third Party Claim lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction
ownership of the same property and caused the was not the proper remedy because the sheriff did not over the person of the defending party or over the
issuance of TCT No. 40292 in Yaps name. levy upon or seize Aquende's property. Moreover, the subject matter of the claim, and in either case the
property was not in the sheriffs possession and it was judgment or final order and resolution are void.Where
In her Answer, Yap clarified that she asserts ownership not about to be sold by virtue of the writ of execution. the questioned judgment is annulled, either on the
of Lot No. 1634-A of Psd-187165, which she claimed is ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, the
the controlling subdivision survey for Lot No. 1634. Yap Aquende then filed a Notice of Appearance with Third same shall be set aside and considered void.
also mentioned that, in Civil Case No. 5064, the trial Party Motion and prayed for the partial annulment of
court already declared that Psd-153847 was simulated the trial courts 26 November 1996 Decision, specifically In his petition for annulment of judgment, Aquende
by the Yaptengco brothers and that their claim on Lot the portion which ordered the cancellation of Psd- alleged that there was extrinsic fraud because he was
No. 1634-B was void. The trial court likewise adjudged 187165 as well as any other certificate of title issued prevented from protecting his title when Bulawan and
Yap Chin Cunas the rightful owner of Lot No. 1634-B. pursuant to Psd-187165.Aquende also filed a the trial court failed to implead him as a party. Bulawan
Yap also stated that Lot No. 1634-B was sold by Yap Supplemental Motion where he reiterated that he was also maintained that the trial court did not acquire
Chin Cunto the Aquende family. not a party in Civil Case No. 9040 and that since the jurisdiction over his person and, therefore, its 26
action was in personam or quasi in rem, only the parties November 1996 Decision is not binding on him. In its 26
On 26 November 1996, the trial court ruled in favor of in the case are bound by the decision. November 2007 Decision, the Court of Appeals found
Bulawan. merit in Aquende's petition and declared that the trial
In its 19 February 2003 Order, the trial court court did not acquire jurisdiction over Aquende, who
Yap appealed. On 20 July 2001, the Court of Appeals deniedAquendesmotions. According to the trial court, it was adversely affected by its 26 November 1996
dismissed Yaps appeal. had lost jurisdiction to modify its 26 November 1996 Decision. We find no error in the findings of the Court of
Decision when the Court of Appeals affirmed said Appeals.
On 7 February 2002, the trial courts 26 November 2006 decision.
Decision became final and executory per entry of Moreover, annulment of judgment is a remedy in law
judgment dated 20 July 2001. On 19 July 2002, the trial Thereafter, Aquende filed a petition for annulment of independent of the case where the judgment sought to
court issued a writ of execution. judgment before the Court of Appeals on the grounds of be annulled was rendered. Consequently, an action for
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The Court of annulment of judgment may be availed of even if the
In a letter dated 24 July 2002, the Register of Deeds Appeals ruled in favor of Aquende. judgment to be annulled had already been fully
informed Aquende of the trial courts writ of execution executed or implemented.
and required Aquende to produce TCT No. 40067 so ISSUE:
that a memorandum of the lien may be annotated on the Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err when it took
title. On 25 July 2002,Aquende wrote a letter to the Did the CA err in taking cognizance of the petition cognizance of Aquende's petition for annulment of
Register of Deeds questioning the trial courts writ of for annulment of judgment? judgment and overturned the trial courts 26 November
execution against his property. Aquende alleged that he 1996 Decision even if another division of the Court of
was unaware of any litigation involving his property HELD: In a petition for annulment of judgment, the
5
Appeals had already affirmed it and it had already been Amendment and/or Reconsideration of Nordec Phil. property[14] in Hizons favor. Hizon, in turn, sold the
executed. and Dr. Malvar. subject property to Esquivel and Talens, as evidenced
by a Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered
Lopez vs. Esquivel The antecedent facts of both Petitions are recounted as Land[15] dated 26 August 1968.
follows:
The petitioners in G.R. No. 168734, namely, Hermogenes died[16] on 20 August 1982. The Lopez
Marcelino, Felisa, Leonardo and Zoilo, all surnamed G.R. No. 168734 siblings, as Hermogenes heirs, filed an action with the
Lopez (Lopez siblings), seek to reverse and set aside the Hermogenes Lopez (Hermogenes) was the father of the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 71, for the cancellation of
Decision[2] dated 14 February 2005 and Lopez siblings. During Hermogenes lifetime, he applied the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 31 July 1959, executed
Resolution[3] dated 27 June 2005 of the Court of Appeals with the Bureau of Lands for a homestead patent over a between Hermogenes and Aguilar, and which involved
in CA-G.R. CV No. 70200. In its assailed Decision, the parcel of land, with an area of 19.4888 hectares, located the entire 19.4888-hectare land. It was docketed
appellate court affirmed in toto the Decision[4] dated 11 in Barrio dela Paz, Antipolo, Rizal. Hermogenes as Civil Case No. 463-A. In a Decision[17] dated 5
January 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) application was docketed as Homestead Patent No. February 1985, the RTC declared the aforesaid Deed of
of Antipolo City, Branch 73, in Civil Case No. 96-4193, 138612. After ascertaining that the land was free from Absolute Sale null and void ab initio as it was made in
which (1) ordered the Lopez siblings to vacate and to claim of any private person, the Bureau of Lands violation of Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
convey to Jose Esquivel, Jr. (Esquivel) and Carlito Talens approved Hermogenes application. In 1939, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as
(Talens) a parcel of land, measuring 2.6950 hectares, Hermogenes submitted his final proof of compliance amended. The said RTC Decision was affirmed in toto by
situated in Barrio dela Paz, Antipolo, Rizal[5] (subject with the residency and cultivation requirements of the the Court of Appeals in its Decision[18] dated 18 August
property); and (2) directed the Register of Deeds of Public Land Act. As a matter of course, the aforesaid 1987 in CA-G.R. CV No. 06242. In a
Marikina, Metropolitan Manila,[6] to divest the Lopez parcel of land was surveyed by a government surveyor Resolution[19] dated 13 April 1988, this Court denied
siblings of their title over the subject property and to and the resulting plan H-138612 was approved by the Aguilars appeal, docketed as G.R. No. 81092, for being
issue title over the same property in the names of Director of Lands on 7 February 1939. The Director of filed late.
Esquivel and Talens. In its assailed Resolution, the Lands, thereafter, ordered the issuance of the
appellate court denied for lack of merit the Motion for homestead patent in Hermogenes name. The patent was On 4 March 1993, on the basis of the Deed of Absolute
Reconsideration of the Lopez siblings. subsequently transmitted to the Register of Deeds of Sale of Unregistered Land dated 26 August
Rizal for transcription and issuance of the 1968 executed by Hizon in their favor, Esquivel and
On the other hand, Noel Rubber and corresponding certificate of title[9] in Hermogenes Talens filed an Application for Registration of the
Development Corporation (Nordec Phil.) and Dr. name.[10] subject property with the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch
Potenciano Malvar (Dr. Malvar), the petitioners in G.R. 73. It was docketed as LRC Case No. 93-1211. The
No. 170621, pray for the setting aside of the Unaware that he had already been awarded a Lopez siblings filed an opposition to the application in
Resolutions dated 6 October 2005[7] and 16 November homestead patent over the 19.4888-hectare land, LRC Case No. 93-1211, asserting, among other grounds,
2005[8] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. Hermogenes sold[11] the same to Ambrocio Aguilar that: (1) they did not know the persons and personal
91428. The Court of Appeals, in its questioned (Aguilar) by virtue of a Deed of Absolute circumstances of Esquivel and Talens who were not the
Resolution dated 6 October 2005, dismissed for Sale[12] dated 31 July 1959. formers adjoining property owners; (2) the subject
prematurity the Petition for Annulment of Judgment property, which Esquivel and Talens sought to have
filed by Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar under Rule 47 of Years later, it was allegedly discovered that the subject registered, was already titled under the Torrens system
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the property, with an area of 2.6950 hectares, was and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No.
RTC Decision dated 11 January 2001 in Civil Case No. erroneously included in survey plan H-138612 of 207990 to No. 207997[20] in the names of the Lopez
96-4193, as they were not impleaded in said case, Hermogenes property. The subject property supposedly siblings; and (3) Tax Declaration No. 04-10304 of
neither as indispensable nor necessary parties. The formed part of the land owned by Lauro Hizon (Hizon), Esquivel and Talens covering the subject property was
appellate court, in its other questioned Resolution which adjoined that of Hermogenes. Resultantly, on 29 spurious. The Lopez siblings also moved for the
dated 16 November 2005, denied the Motion for November 1965, Hermogenes executed a dismissal of LRC Case No. 93-1211 invoking the final
Quitclaim[13] over his rights and interests to the subject and executory Decision[21] dated 5 February 1985 of the
6
RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 71, in Civil Case No. 463- 93-1222, where they obtained a favorable
A, which affirmed Hermogenes title to the 19.4888- In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the judgment. The RTC lastly found that the action for
hectare land, that included the subject property. Lopez siblings denied all the allegations of Esquivel and reconveyance of Esquivel and Talens was not yet barred
Talens. As their special defenses, the Lopez siblings by prescription as it was instituted within the 30-year
The RTC rendered its Decision[22] on 4 April 1995 in called attention to the non-compliance by Esquivel and prescriptive period.
LRC Case No. No. 93-1211, granting the Application for Talens with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules The Lopez siblings filed an appeal of the
Registration of the subject property filed by Esquivel of Civil Procedure, on non-forum shopping, considering aforementioned RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals,
and Talens. Accordingly, the Lopez siblings filed a that there was another case before the RTC of Antipolo, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 70200.
Motion for Reconsideration of the said RTC Rizal, Branch 71,[26] also involving the subject property
judgment. Acting on the Motion of the Lopez siblings, and the issues on the genuineness and validity of the In their Appellants Brief, the Lopez siblings
the RTC issued an Order[23] dated 23 May 1996 in which Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land dated 26 assigned the following errors:
it corrected several errors in its earlier decision, i.e., a August 1968, executed by Hizon in favor of Esquivel and
typographical error on the area of the subject property, Talens. The Lopez siblings further averred that the 1. The trial court presided by
and a mistake in the conversion of the area of the cause of action of Esquivel and Talens was already Judge Mauricio M. Rivera
subject property from square meters to hectares. The barred by the statute of limitations and laches since erred in failing to dismiss
RTC also stated in the same Order that it could not they failed to assert their alleged rights to the subject this case for reconveyance
direct the amendment of the TCTs in the names of the property for 25 years.[27] The Lopez siblings on the grounds of: (a)
Lopez siblings, to exclude therefrom the subject additionally interposed that the Quitclaim involving the prescription of action; and
property which was adjudged to Esquivel and Talens, as subject property, invoked by Esquivel and Talens, was (b) laches;
the RTC was sitting only as a land registration ineffective, because by the time it was executed by 2. [Hermogenes] was no
court. The RTC, thus, advised Esquivel and Talens to file Hermogenes in favor of Hizon on 29 November 1965, longer the owner of the
an action for reconveyance of the subject property and Hermogenes had already sold his entire 19.4888- property when he
only when Esquivel and Tales succeed in such action hectare land, of which the subject property was part, to executed the [quitclaim]
can they subsequently cause the registration of the Aguilar on 31 July 1959. The Lopez siblings finally dated [29 November 1965]
subject property in their names. argued that the said Quitclaim was a nullity as it because of the previous
contravened Section 17[28] of the Public Land Act, as sale to third party on [31
Following the advice of the RTC, Esquivel and Talens amended.[29] July 1959];
filed with the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, on 2
October 1996, a Complaint[24] for Reconveyance and On 11 January 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision in 3. There was (sic) no prior
Recovery of Possession of the subject property against Civil Case 96-4193, granting the prayer of Esquivel and records in the Bureau of
the Lopez siblings. The case was docketed as Civil Case Talens for the reconveyance and recovery of possession Lands or in the assessors
No. 96-4193. of the subject property. The RTC held that the Deed of office that [Hizon], the
Absolute Sale dated 31 July 1959 between Hermogenes predecessor-in-interest of
In their Complaint, Esquivel and Talens alleged that and Aguilar was already declared null and void ab the [Esquivel and Talens]
when the Lopez siblings had the land they inherited initio by a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, is a landholder or a
from Hermogenes registered, they included the subject the Lopez siblings were estopped from asserting said previous tax declarant;
property, which Hermogenes already conveyed to Hizon Deed to defeat the rights of Esquivel and Talens to the
in the Quitclaim dated 29 November 1965. Hence, the subject property. The RTC also ruled that Esquivel and 4. The court a quo thru the
subject property was erroneously included in TCTs No. Talens were not guilty of laches because as early as same judge indiscreetly
207990 to No. 207997, issued by the Register of Deeds 1986, they had declared the subject property in their based primarily the
of Marikina, Metro Manila, in the names of the Lopez names for taxation purposes. Moreover, in 1993, appealed decision on its
siblings. The subject property is presently occupied and Esquivel and Talens filed before the RTC an application erroneous findings and
in the physical possession of the Lopez siblings.[25] for registration of the subject property, LRC Case No. conclusions in LRC Case
7
No. 93-1211 contrary to On 14 February 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered its I. Whether or not the [Court of
the findings and Decision dismissing the appeal of the Lopez siblings and Appeals] erred in applying the rule of
conclusions of this affirming in toto the RTC Decision dated 11 January estoppel in disregard of the law of
Honorable Court among 2001. The appellate court ruled that the Lopez siblings the case doctrine (a) in the Decision
others in CA G.R. CV No. are barred by the doctrine of estoppel in pais from promulgated on [13 September
07745, entitled Ambrocio challenging the Quitclaim executed by Hermogenes over 1990] in G.R. No. 90380
Aguilar v. Heirs of Fernando the subject property in favor of Hizon on 29 November entitled Eduardo Santos v. The
Gorospe, et al. promulgated 1965 on the ground that Hermogenes no longer owned Honorable Court of Appeals; (b) in the
on 31 August 1989; in CA the subject property at that time. The Lopez siblings Decision [E]n [B]anc promulgated
G.R. CV No. 06242, themselves, as Hermogenes heirs, filed with the RTC on [24 September 2002] in G.R. No.
entitled Marcelino Lopez, et Civil Case No. 463-A for the cancellation of the Deed of 123780, entitled In Re: Petition
al. v. Sps. Ambrocio Absolute Sale involving the 19.4888-hectare land Seeking for Clarification as to the
[Aguilar] and Pelagia (which included the subject property), executed by Validity and Forceful Effect of Two
Viray promulgated on 18 Hermogenes in favor of Aguilar on 31 July 1959. The (2) Final and Executory but
August 1987; and the Lopez siblings obtained a favorable judgment in Civil conflicting Decisions of [this Court]
findings and conclusions of Case No. 463-A as the RTC therein declared void ab Col. Pedro Cabuay, Jr. v. Marcelino
the Supreme Court in G.R. initio the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale. Hence, the Lopez, et al; and (c) in the Decision
No. 90380 entitled Santos Lopez siblings are now estopped from asserting the promulgated on [5 March 2003] in
v. Court of validity of the same Deed of Absolute Sale so as to void G.R. No. 127827 entitled Eleuterio
Appeals promulgated on 13 or nullify the Quitclaim executed by Hermogenes in Lopez, et al. v. The Hon. Court of
September 1990 among favor of Aguilar, on which Esquivel and Talens based Appeals, Spouses Marcelino Lopez and
others. their claim to the subject property. Any deviation by the Cristina Lopez, et al.;
Lopez siblings from their previous position would
5. Having already erred in definitely cause injury and prejudice to Esquivel and II. Whether or not the [appellate court]
favor of the [Esquivel and Talens, who acted relying on the knowledge that the was correct in applying the rule
Talens], the same previous sale between Hermogenes and Aguilar of the of estoppel in pais in disregard of
presiding judge of the trial land, which included the subject property, was already the peremptory and [personal-to-
court erringly proceeded adjudged void ab initio. The Lopez siblings, moreover, the-applicants-homestead]
to conduct hearing and to were only subrogated to whatever rights and interests provisions of the Public Land Law or
decide this case despite the their father Hermogenes still had over the subject Commonwealth Act 141, as
consolidation of Civil Case property upon the latters death in 1982. They were, amended;
No. 95-3693 thus, bound by the Quitclaim Hermogenes executed in
entitled Angelina Hizon, et 1965 involving the subject property.[31] III. Are the [Esquivel and Talens] and
al. v. Carlito Talens, et al., their predecessor-in-interest barred
involving the same subject The Motion for Reconsideration of the by the statute of limitations?
property and the efficacy aforesaid Decision filed by the Lopez siblings was
and validity of the denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 27 IV. Are the [Esquivel and Talens] and
[quitclaim] solely relied June 2005. their predecessor-in-interest guilty
upon by the [Esquivel and of laches?
Talens].[30] The Lopez siblings are presently before this
Court seeking the resolution of the following issues: V. The quitclaim relied upon by
[Esquivel and Talens] is intrinsically
8
void and has violated the provisions 101 of the Public Land Act, as amended; or objected to recognized cause or consideration for conveyance of a
of the Public Land Law.[32] by a private person under Section 102 of the same parcel of land subject of a homestead patent under the
statute. Resultantly, Esquivel and Talens could not have prohibitive and mandatory provisions of the Public
availed themselves of the recourse prescribed by Land Act, as amended. Moreover, whatever efficacy the
The Lopez siblings aver that a deeper analysis Section 38[37] of Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Quitclaim had was already barred by the ruling of this
of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals will Land Registration Act, in their action for reconveyance Court en bancin Cabuay and Lopez.
reveal the latters utter disregard for or deviation from of the subject property.Section 38 of the Land
the law of the case set by this Court in its Decisions Registration Act may only be availed of by an aggrieved The instant Petition is meritorious.
in Santos v. Court of Appeals,[33] Group Commander, owner whose property was fraudulently included in a
Intelligence & Security Group, Philippine Army v. Dr. decree of registration. A decree of registration under Since the issues in this case are interrelated,
Malvar,[34] and Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[35] where the the Land Registration Act merely confirms, but does not the Court shall discuss them concurrently.
issue on the validity of the homestead patent granted to confer, ownership over private land so as to bring it
Hermogenes, father of the Lopez siblings, was already under the operation of the Torrenssystem. The Law of the case has been defined as the
passed upon. In these three Decisions, the Court already remedies provided under Sections 101 and 102 of the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It is a term
declared the homestead patent awarded to Hermogenes Public Land Act, on one hand, and Section 38 of the applied to an established rule that when an appellate
valid. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in applying Land Registration Act, on the other, are exclusive of court passes on a question and remands the case to the
the rule on estoppel in disregard of the doctrine of law each other, considering the basic distinction in the lower court for further proceedings, the question there
of the case. subject matters thereof, i.e., the award or grant of public settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent
land in the former, and the registration of private land appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably
The Lopez siblings further argue that the in the latter. established as the controlling legal rule or decision
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals runs counter between the same parties in the same case
to the personal-to-the-homestead-applicant The Lopez siblings also maintain that Hizon, continues to be the law of the case, whether correct
policy[36]provisions embodied in Sections 12, 13, and 17 predecessor-in-interest of Esquivel and Talens, who on general principles or not, so long as the facts on
of the Public Land Act, as amended, that this Court claimed ownership over the subject property, was duty which such decision was predicated continue to be the
upheld in Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez. The Court bound to exercise the diligence of a good father of the facts of the case before the court.[38]Thus, the court
precisely disregarded the rule on estoppel in pais or the family by opposing or taking exception to Hermogenes reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the
principle of trust in said three cases as it had no room homestead application, which included said case but instead apply the ruling in the previous
for application under the tenor or context of the property. Even after the homestead patent over the appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its
mandatory personal-to-the-homestead-applicant policy subject property was already awarded to Hermogenes, duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be
provisions of the Public Land Act, as amended. It was, Hizon still had opportunity to protest the same before impossible if a question, once considered and decided
thus, erroneous for the appellate court to apply the Bureau of Lands, prior to the registration of said by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and
estoppel in pais in ruling against the Lopez siblings in its homestead patent with the Register of Deeds. For failing upon any and subsequent appeal.[39]
assailed judgment. to take appropriate actions, Hizon, and his successors-
in-interest, Esquivel and Talens, are now barred from Given the foregoing, it is apparent that the
The Lopez siblings additionally avow that in doing so by the statute of limitations and laches. Decisions of this Court in Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez,
the proceedings conducted on Hermogenes homestead cited by the Lopez siblings in their instant Petition,
application by the Bureau of Lands, it was verified that Finally, the Lopez siblings assert that the cannot be regarded as the law of the case herein. The
the land applied for, which included the subject reliance by the Court of Appeals on the legal efficacy of law of the case applies only when (1) a question is
property, was disposable public land. If it was true that the Quitclaim involving the subject property executed passed upon by an appellate court, and (2) the appellate
the subject property was only erroneously included in by Hermogenes in favor of Hizon is misplaced. The court remands the case to the lower court for further
the homestead patent awarded to Hermogenes, then reason for the renunciation, waiver, or repudiation by proceedings; the lower court and even the appellate
such an award could only be challenged by the Hermogenes of his rights to the subject property in courts on subsequent appeal of the case are, thus,
government in an action for reversion under Section Hizons favor, as stated in the said Quitclaim, is not a bound by how such question had been previously
9
settled. It must be emphasized, therefore, that the law of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, as owner of my above-cited parcel of
the case finds application only in the same case amended, prohibits any encumbrance or alienation of land by the name of [Hizon] has duly
between the same parties. lands acquired under homestead provisions from the caused the survey of his land
date of the approval of application and for a term of five bordering mine x x x; that after the
The Petition at bar is without question years from and after the date of issuance of the patent actual execution of the survey of the
separate and distinct from Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez, or grant. The same provision provides that no land of said [Hizon], it was found out
although they may all involve, in varying degrees, the alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead that the land which has been in his
homestead patent granted to Hermogenes over the after five years and before 25 years after issuance of possession for many many years or
19.8222-hectare land, which included the subject title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary since time immemorial is within my
property. First, Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez, directly of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which approval plan denominated as H-138612;
tackled the validity of the homestead patent granted to shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal
Hermogenes over the 19.8222-hectare land; while, in grounds. xxxx
the instant case, the validity of the homestead patent
thus granted to Hermogenes is no longer in issue, but it In this case, the subject property was included, 5. That in fairness and in
is alleged herein that said patent erroneously included whether correctly or erroneously, in the 19.4888- justice to [Hizon], I herewith
the subject property. Second, to recall, the instant hectare land awarded to Hermogenes, by virtue of a renounce, repudiate and
Petition originated from Civil Case No. 96-4193, the homestead patent, issued on 7 February 1939. The unconditionally and irrevocably
Complaint for Reconveyance and Recovery of the Quitclaim over the subject property, a 2.6950-hectare waive and quitclaim all my rights,
subject property filed by Esquivel and Talens against portion of the said 19.4888-hectare land, was executed shares, interests or participations on
the Lopez siblings before the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, by Hermogenes in Hizons favor on 29 November the above-described parcel of land in
Branch 73. In no instance was a question or issue in 1965. Between the date of issuance of the homestead favor of [Hizon], of legal age, Filipino,
Civil Case No. 96-4193 ever been previously raised to an patent to Hermogenes and that of the execution of the married to Angelina Villarosa and a
appellate court. Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez, did not pass Quitclaim, more than 26 years had passed. Therefore, resident of Antipolo, Rizal, and for
upon any question or issue raised before this Court the execution of the Quitclaim was no longer within the this purpose I am agreeable that my
from Civil Case No. 96-4193. And thirdly, despite the five-year period within which the land covered by the plan H-138612 be duly amended so
fact that all these cases may have common antecedent homestead patent issued to Hermogenes must not be as to segregate the above-described
facts and sometimes involved the same personalities, encumbered or alienated; and was also beyond the portion which is owned by the
the Lopez siblings (herein petitioners) and Esquivel and period between five and 25 years following the issuance aforesaid [Hizon].[41]
Talens (herein respondents) were not parties of patent within which approval of the Secretary of
in Santos, Cabuay, and Lopez. Environment and Natural Resources is still necessary to
The Court now proceeds to resolve the issue of make the alienation or encumbrance valid.[40] It can be gleaned from the afore-quoted
whether Esquivel and Talens have a right to the paragraphs of the Quitclaim that the intention of
reconveyance of the subject property based on the Although it has been established that the Hermogenes in executing the same was to restore to
Quitclaim executed by Hermogenes in Hizons favor Quitclaim was executed beyond any of the prohibitive Hizon the subject property, which Hermogenes believed
on 29 November 1965. Such determination shall be and/or restrictive periods under the Public Land Act, as to have been mistakenly included in his homestead
dependent on whether the Quitclaim was executed amended, the Court must next look into whether the patent.
beyond the period within which encumbrance or Quitclaim had the effect of validly conveying the subject
alienation of the land acquired by homestead patent is property to Hizon. It is worthy to note, however, that the subject
prohibited; and whether the Quitclaim effected a valid The pertinent portions of the Quitclaim in property was part of the 19.4888-hectare land covered
conveyance of the subject property from Hermogenes to question read as follows: by the homestead patent awarded by the Bureau of
Hizon. Lands to Hermogenes. The 19.4888-hectare land was
2. That it has come to my identified and measured in a survey conducted by a
personal knowledge that a boundary government surveyor and the resulting plan H-138612
10
was approved by the Director of Lands. The approval of year in the municipality where the land is situated and of Esquivel and Talens, is similarly void for lack of an
survey plan H-138612 and the grant of the homestead must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land object.
patent over the 19.4888-hectare land in favor of applied for.[43]
Hermogenes, performed as part of the official functions Even granting arguendo, that the Quitclaim is
of the Director of Lands and the Bureau of Lands, enjoy In this case, the Bureau of Lands approved valid and transferred ownership of the subject property
the presumption of regularity.[42] Reasonable doubt is Hermogenes application for homestead patent over the from Hermogenes to Hizon, the latter and his
thus cast on the supposed mistake which resulted in the 19.4888-hectare land after finding him qualified for the successors-in-interest, Esquivel and Talens, are now
inclusion of the subject property in the 19.4888-hectare same.In contrast, the only evidence supporting Hizons barred by the statute of limitations and laches from
land awarded to Hermogenes by virtue of the claim to the subject property was the Quitclaim. There asserting their rights to the subject property, after
homestead patent. is no other proof that Hizon possessed, cultivated, and failing to exercise the same for an unreasonable length
introduced improvements on the subject of time.
Even assuming that the homestead patent property. Neither is there any showing that after the
awarding the 19.4888-hectare land to Hermogenes did execution of the Quitclaim, Hizon himself applied for a Laches has been defined as the failure of or
erroneously include the subject property, Hermogenes homestead patent over the subject property. In fact, it is neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
could not simply convey said property to Hizon, nor undisputed that the subject property has always been in time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could
could Hizon easily recover the same, by virtue of a mere the possession of Hermogenes, then the Lopez or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right
Quitclaim. Lands acquired under homestead patents Siblings. Hizon and Esquivel and Talens never came into within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that
come from the public domain. If the subject property the possession of the subject property even after the the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or
was erroneously included in the homestead patent execution of the supposed deeds of conveyances in their declined to assert it. Thus, the doctrine of
awarded to Hermogenes, then the subject property favor. laches presumes that the party guilty of negligence had
must be returned to the State and not to the opportunity to do what should have been done, but
Hizon. Furthermore, the survey plan conducted and The Court also cannot consider the subject property to failed to do so.[45]
homestead patent issued in Hermogenes name covered have been held in trust by Hermogenes for and on In the instant case, when Esquivel and Talens
a 19.4888-hectare land; to exclude therefrom the behalf of Hizon. Settled is the rule that a homestead filed with the RTC their application for registration of
2.6950-hectare subject property (since it purportedly applicant must personally comply with the legal the subject property on 5 March 1993, 28 years had
belonged to Hizon) would mean that Hermogenes requirements for a homestead grant. The homestead passed since the execution by Hermogenes of the
actually acquired land with an area less that what he applicant himself must possess the necessary Quitclaim covering the subject property in favor of
was awarded under the homestead patent. This qualifications, cultivate the land, and reside thereon. It Hizon on 29 November 1965; and 25 years elapsed
complication reveals that any alleged mistake as would be a circumvention of the law if an individual from the execution by Hizon of the Deed of Absolute
regards the subject property is not a simple and private were permitted to apply in behalf of another, as the Sale of the subject property in favor of Esquivel and
matter between Hermogenes and Hizon; but is latter may be disqualified or might not comply with the Talens on 26 August 1968. During these periods,
primarily a problem between Hermogenes and the residency and cultivation requirements.[44] without providing any reasons therefor, neither Hizon
State, the latter having awarded the 19.4888-hectare nor Esquivel and Talens took possession of the subject
land to the former by virtue of the homestead patent. In the end, the Quitclaim dated 29 November property or exercised in any other way their rights over
1965 could not have validly conveyed or transferred the same.
A homestead patent is one of the modes to ownership of the subject property from Hermogenes to Finally, concerning this Petition, is the issue of
acquire title to public lands suitable for agricultural Hizon. It is null and void for being contrary to the whether the Lopez siblings are estopped from
purposes. Under the Public Land Act, as amended, a provisions of the Public Land Act, as amended. As a questioning the validity of the Quitclaim, as ruled by the
homestead patent is one issued to any citizen of this result, Hizon acquired no right over the subject Court of Appeals? It bears to point out that the question
country, over the age of 18 years or the head of a family, property which he could have sold to Esquivel and of estoppel is relevant only if the Lopez siblings are
and who is not the owner of more than 24 hectares of Talens; and the Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered challenging the validity of the Quitclaim on the ground
land in the country. To be qualified, the applicant must Land dated 26 August 1968 executed by Hizon in favor that when Hermogenes executed the same, he had
show that he has resided continuously for at least one already previously sold his 19.4888-hectare land, which
11
included the subject property, to Aguilar. In In its Decision dated 11 January 2001 in Civil Case No. Sometime after 2 August 2004, Atty. Angeles
recollection, the Lopez siblings successfully had the said 96-4193, the RTC granted the action for reconveyance again informed Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar that there
sale of the land by Hermogenes to Aguilar of the subject property to Esquivel and Talens. The was another case filed against the Lopez siblings
nullified. Since the Court herein refuses to give effect to subject property, however, was already supposedly sold involving the subject property. The said case was the
the Quitclaim in question on other grounds already by Lopez siblings to Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar. action for reconveyance filed by Esquivel and Talens,
discussed above, the issue of estoppel actually loses Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar alleged in their Petition for docketed as Civil Case No. 96-4193 before RTC of
relevance and need not be resolved anymore. Annulment of Judgment that the Lopez siblings, the Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, but which was already, by
successors-in-interest of Hermogenes, were the then, the subject of an appeal before the Court of
Considering the pronouncements of this Court registered owners of 15 parcels of land situated at Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 70200 (and which
that the Quitclaim covering the subject property Overlooking, Sumulong Highway, Barangay Sta. Cruz, would eventually reach this Court in G.R. No.
executed by Hermogenes in favor of Hizon is null and (formerly Barrio dela Paz), Antipolo City, Rizal, covered 168734). Atty. Angeles, however, belittled this most
void for being contrary to the provisions of the Public by plan (LRC) Psd-3289610, with a total area of 19.4888 recent case involving the subject property, and even
Land Act, as amended, on homestead grants; and that hectares.[46] Among these parcels of land were Lots 1, 2, showed to Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar the Motion to
the Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject property 3, 4, 7 and 8, covered by TCTs No. 207990 to No. Resolve Appeal dated 2 August 2004, which he filed in
executed by Hizon in favor of Esquivel and Talens is null 207997[47] of the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City, CA-G.R. CV No. 70200, together with the Brief for the
and void for lack of a proper object, then Esquivel and with an aggregate area of 2.875 hectares, and which Lopez siblings. Yet, Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar
Talens have no basis to ask for the reconveyance of the constituted the subject property.[48] conducted their own inquiry, and were surprised to
subject property. Hizon never owned the subject discover that the Decision rendered by the RTC on 11
property and could never have sold the same to Beginning 20 April 1994, Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar January 2001 in Civil Case No. 96-4193 was actually
Esquivel and Talens. purchased the afore-mentioned lots from the Lopez adverse to their rights and interest; and despite this,
siblings and their assigns, namely, Atty. Angeles and they were neither impleaded nor represented
Rogelio Amurao (Amurao),[49] as evidenced by several therein. Even Atty. Angeles, the supposed counsel for
G.R. No. 170621 Deeds of Absolute Sale and Deeds of Conditional Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar, did not lift a finger to
Sale. Immediately after making such purchases, Nordec protect their rights in said case.
A Petition for Annulment of Judgment was filed with the Phils. and Dr. Malvar introduced large scale
Court of Appeals by Nordec Phil., a corporation improvements on the subject property, among which Further intensive investigation revealed to Nordec
organized and existing under the laws of were several business establishments[50] with a cost of Phils. and Dr. Malvar that the 11 January 2001 Decision
the Philippines; and Dr. Malvar, President and General no less than P50,000,000. of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193 was rendered
Manager of petitioner Nordec Phil., docketed as CA G.R. under circumstances amounting to extrinsic fraud and
CV No. 91428. In 1996, when the subject property was involved in lack or denial of due process, insofar as said Decision
Civil Case No. 96-4130 heard before the RTC of adversely affected their rights and interests to the
The Lopez siblings, Esquivel, and Talens, were named Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, entitled Heirs of Elino Adia v. subject property. Among the circumstances which
respondents in CA-G.R. CV No. 91428 (and also herein), Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez, it was Atty. Angeles who allegedly amounted to extrinsic fraud and lack or denial
being the parties in Civil Case No. 96-4193, wherein represented and protected the interest of Nordec Phils. of due process, were described by Nordec Phils. and Dr.
the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, rendered the and Dr. Malvar in said case by filing a Motion to Malvar as follows: (1) when Esquivel and Talens
Decision dated 11 January 2001, which Nordec Phil. and Dismiss.[51]In Cabuay, Jr., wherein Dr. Malvar and the instituted Civil Case No. 96-4193, they personally and
Dr. Malvar was seeking to have annulled by the Court of Lopez siblings were named the respondents in the through their caretakers, already knew that Nordec
Appeals. Atty. Sergio Angeles (Atty. Angeles) and Atty. Petition Seeking for Clarification as to the Validity and Phils. and Malvar already bought and took possession of
George A. Ang Cheng (Atty. Ang Cheng) were similarly Forceful Effect of the Two (2) Final and Executory but the subject property, but Esquivel and Talens, through
impleaded as respondents in said petition before the Conflicting Decisions of this Court involving the subject their counsel Atty. Ang Cheng deliberately failed to
appellate court on account of their involvement as property, it was also Atty. Angeles who appeared for implead Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar; and (2) Atty.
counsels for the parties in Civil Case No. 96-4193. Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar. Angeles, who was supposed to protect the rights and
interests of Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar, as their
12
counsel, had an adverse personal interest in the subject remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other The issues and arguments raised by Nordec
property as he unconscionably taken, by way of appropriate remedies are also no longer available to Phils. and Dr. Malvar all boil down to the question of
champertous attorneys fees, almost the whole of the Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar because of the extrinsic whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their
19.4888-hectare land inherited by the Lopez siblings fraud committed upon them by the Lopez siblings, Petition for Annulment of Judgment for being
from Hermogenes. Esquivel, Talens, Atty. Angeles, and Atty. Ang Cheng; premature since the judgment sought to be annulled is
and of the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC to still the subject of a Petition for Review before this
Given the foregoing circumstances and the unsuccessful take cognizance of Civil Case No. 96-4193 and to render Court, docketed as G.R. No. 168734, and is not yet final
attempt of Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar to intervene in the 11 January 2001 Decision therein. Even the Motion and executory.
CA-G.R. No. 70200, Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar opted to for Intervention of Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar in CA-
file with the Court of Appeals a Petition to annul the G.R. No. 70200, the appeal of the 11 January The Court answers in the negative.
Decision dated 11 January 2001 of the RTC in Civil Case 2001 Decision of the RTC, was not allowed by the Court
No. 96-4193, granting the reconveyance of the subject of Appeals. Therefore, it is neither improper nor The ordinary remedies of a motion for new
property to Esquivel and Talens. Their Petition was premature for Nordec Phil. and Malvar to file a Petition trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 91428. Nordec Phil. and Dr. for the annulment of the said 11 January 2001 Decision judgment are remedies available
Malvar prayed in their Petition that the 11 January of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193, even though the only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed
2001 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193 be said Decision, after being affirmed in toto by the Court judgment is rendered. In fact, it has been held that a
annulled for the reason that they were not impleaded of Appeals, is now pending appeal before this Court. person who was never a party to the case, or even
therein even as they were necessary, if not summoned to appear therein, cannot make use of a
indispensable, parties. Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar additionally petition for relief from judgment.[52] Indubitably,
additionally prayed that any writ of execution and other argue that the Court of Appeals resolved the question of Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar cannot avail themselves of
orders, which may have been or may thereafter be procedure in a manner that was patently not in the aforesaid ordinary remedies of motion for new trial,
issued to enforce the said RTC decision, be declared accordance with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petition for relief from judgment, or appeal, because
ineffective, insofar as they and their assigns are particularly, when it held that (1) Rule 47 does not they were not parties to the proceedings in Civil Case
concerned. cover the judgment of the RTC in this particular case; No. 96-4193 in which the RTC Decision dated 11
and (2) Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar still had an January 2001 sought to be annulled was
On 6 October 2005, the Court of Appeals issued its adequate remedy in seeking intervention in G.R. No. rendered. Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar also cannot seek
assailed Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 91428 dismissing 167834, the appeal to this Court of the RTC Decision the annulment of the 11 January 2001 Decision of the
the Petition of Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar. According to dated 11 January 2001, as affirmed by the Court of RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193.
the said Resolution, the RTC Decision dated 11 January Appeals.
2001 in Civil Case No. 96-4193 could not be the proper An action for annulment of judgment is a
subject of the said Petition for Annulment of Judgment Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar insist that since remedy in law independent of the case where the
given that the very same decision was still pending Rules 37, 38 and 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The
appeal before this Court in G.R. No. 168734 and, thus, on motion for new trial, petition for relief, and appeal, purpose of such action is to have the final and executory
was not yet final and executory. In addition, should the respectively, simply mention judgments or final orders, judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of
Court of Appeals take cognizance of such a Petition, it without making any distinction as to whether or not the litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary
could result in contrary and inconsistent rulings by the same is final and executory; it should follow that where remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from
appellate court and this Court. only the words judgments or final orders are similarly judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer
used in Rule 47 on annulment of judgments, then such available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based
Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar asseverate that words should be understood to also refer to all on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of
they were not impleaded as defendants in Civil Case No. judgments or final orders, regardless of whether they jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person need not
96-4193 where the RTC rendered its Decision dated 11 are final and executory. be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled, and it
January 2001, affecting the rights and interest of Nordec is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the
Phils. and Dr. Malvar to the subject property. The judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and
13
collusion and he would be adversely affected 1. respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition 1) petitioners were deemed notified of the
thereby.[53] for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the hearing by publication and that the deficiency in the
late Soledad Provido Elevencionado payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright
An action to annul a final judgment on the dismissal of the petition.
ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or A. ALLEGATION: he was the heir of the decedent
collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic and the executor of her will. 2) RTC’s Decision was already final and
where it prevents a party from having a trial or from executory even before petitioners’ filing of the motion
presenting his entire case to the court, or where it B. RTC’s RULING: allowed the probate of the will to reopen
operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to
itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The respondent 3. Petitioners filed a petition to annule RTC’s
overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged decision
2. Petitioners after 4 months filed a motion for
is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
the reopening of the probate proceedings A. CLAIM: there was a compromise agreement
prevented a party from having his day in court.[54]
between petitioners and respondents and they learnt
A. CLAIMs: the probate proceeding only in July 2001
It is, thus, settled that the purpose of a Petition
for Annulment of Judgment is to have the final and 1) they are the intestate heirs of the decedent. B. CA’s RULING: petition dismissed
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a
renewal of litigation. If the judgment sought to be 2) RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the 1) no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or
annulled, like in this case, is still on appeal or under petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees, resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
review by a higher court, it cannot be regarded as final, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate
and there can be no renewal of litigation because the heirs. remedies through no fault of their own
litigation is actually still open and on-going. In this light,
the arguments of Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar that the 3) will could not have been probated because: ISSUE: W/N the allowance of the will to probate should
judgments or final orders need not be final and be annulled for failure to mention the petitioners as
A) the signature of the decedent was forged; parties
executory for it to be annulled must fail.
B) the will was not executed in accordance with HELD: No
This Court, therefore, finds no error in the
law, that is, the witnesses failed to sign below the
dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the Petition for
attestation clause; 1. Probate of a will is considered action in rem
Annulment of Judgment filed by Nordec Phil. and Dr.
Malvar, on the ground of prematurity. Given that the 11 C) the decedent lacked testamentary capacity to a. Under the Rules of Court, any executor,
January 2001 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96- execute and publish a will; devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person
4193 was still pending appeal before this Court, the
interested in the estate may, at any time after the death
Court of Appeals could not take cognizance of the D) the will was executed by force and under of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to
Petition for annulment of the same judgment, for if it duress and improper pressure; have the will allowed.[36] Notice of the time and place
had done so, then it would risk promulgating a ruling
for proving the will must be published for three (3)
which could be contrary to and inconsistent with the E) the decedent had no intention to make a will at
consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general
ruling of this Court on the appeal of the judgment. the time of affixing of her signature; and
circulation in the province,[37] as well as furnished to
F) she did not know the properties to be the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and
disposed of, having included in the will properties devisees of the testator
Alaban vs. CA which no longer belonged to her.
b. Petitioners became parties due to the
B. RTC’s Ruling: denied motion publication of the notice of hearing
FACTS:
14
2. The filing of motion to reopen is similar to a On 20 February 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered
motion for new trial Respondent Apostol was hired as assistant manager by judgment, reversing and setting aside the NLRC
petitioner Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. (TIPI) in Decision.
a. The ruling became final and executor because March 1991, and was terminated by TIPI on 21 January
the motion was filed out of time 2000. On the other hand, respondent Opulencia was MR was filed by the TIPI, but was denied, hence this
hired as a warehouse helper by TIPI sometime in 1990, appeal.
b. Given that they knew of the decision 4 months and was the company‘s warehouse supervisor at the
after they could have filed a petition for relief from time of the termination of his employment on 21 ISSUES:
judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. January 2000.
(1) Whether the issues raised by TIPI in this case entail
3. petition for annulment of judgment must still
Apostol was the immediate superior of Opulencia. On 14 an evaluation of the factual findings of the Court
fail for failure to comply with the substantive requisites,
and 15 August 1999, TIPI conducted an inventory cycle of Appeals, which is proscribed in a petition for
a. An action for annulment of judgment is a count of its direct and retail sales in its Muñoz review on certiorari where only questions of law
remedy in law independent of the case where the warehouse. The inventory cycle count yielded may be raised.
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered discrepancies between its result and the stock list
balance Sugue (TIPI‘s Marketing Services Manager) sent (2) Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its
b. PURPOSE: to have the final and executory a ―show-cause letter‖ to Apostol, TIPI‘s Assistant jurisdiction when it reversed the factual findings of
judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of Manager-Warehouse and Distribution, requiring him to the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
litigation. explain in writing the negative variance based on the RULING:
inventory cycle count.
c. 2 Grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of (1) Respondents refer to Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997
jurisdiction or denial of due process On 21 January 2000, TIPI, through Sugue, served notices Rules of Civil Procedure
to Apostol and Opulencia, stating that their employment which states:
d. An action to annul a final judgment on the had been terminated for committing infractions of the
ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or company‘s rules and regulations. Specifically, Apostol “Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.—A
collateral in character was found to have committed Offense No. 3 (Fraud or party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
willful breach by an employee of the trust reposed in or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
i. Extrinsic if it prevents a party from having a
him by the Company) and Offense No. 25 (Using, Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or
uttering or saying profane, indecent, abusive, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the
derogatory and/or indecorous words or language Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
judgment itself but to the manner in which it is
against the employer or supervisor), while Opulencia petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
procured.
was found to have committed Offense No. 3 only. distinctly set forth.”
4. notice is required to be personally given to
On 28 January 2000, Apostol and Opulencia filed with Applying the above rule, respondents maintain that the
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and instant petition should be dismissed motu proprio by
a. the will states that the respondent was non-payment of salaries and other benefits against TIPI. this Court.
instituted as the sole heir of the decedent thus he has no
legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the As a general rule, petitions for review under Rule 45 of
for probate or personally notify them Complaint for lack of merit. the Rules of Civil Procedure filed before this Court may
only raise questions of law. However, jurisprudence has
Triumph International vs. Apostol and Opulencia On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Decision of the Labor recognized several exceptions to this rule.
Arbiter.
FACTS:
15
In Almendrala v. Ngo, we have enumerated several proper vehicle for such review is a Special Civil Action proper and with sufficient basis, it is incumbent upon
instances when this Court may review findings of fact of for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and this Court to make its own evaluation of the evidence on
the Court of Appeals on appeal by certiorari, to wit: that the case should be filed in the Court of Appeals in record.
strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on courts. Moreover, it is already settled that under Section
speculation, surmises or conjectures; 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Navarro vs. Executive Secretary
(2) when the inference made is manifestly Act No. 7902, the Court of Appeals—pursuant to the
mistaken, absurd or impossible; exercise of its original jurisdiction over petitions for Facts:
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; certiorari—is specifically given the power to pass upon
In 2006, RA 9355, An Act Creating the Province of
(4) when the judgment is based on the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual
Dinagat Islands was passed into law. Petitioners in this
misapprehension of facts; issues. Section 9 clearly states:
case, were former political leaders in Surigao del Norte
(5) when the find ings of fact are conflicting;
whose land area was affected by the creation of the new
(6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals “x x x
province. the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
went beyond the issues of the case, or its The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases
seeking to nullify RA 9355 for being void on the ground
findings are contrary to the admissions of both and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform
that the new province did not meet the statutory
the appellant and the appellee; any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues
requirements for population and land area. The SC
(7) when the findings are contrary to that of the raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
ruled in their favor and proclaimed the said law as
trial court; jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct
unconstitutional. Thereafter, the Comelec issued
(8) when the findings are conclusions without new trials or further proceedings. x x x”
Resolution 8970 w/c was about the upcoming elections.
citation of specific evidence on which they are
In this resolution, they had 3 scenarios, all of w/c affect
based; However, equally settled is the rule that factual findings
the petitioners as political figures in the region. In 2010,
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired
the SC issued an Entry for Judgment, stating that the
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are
decision in this case had become final and executory.
disputed by the respondent; generally accorded not only respect but even finality by
Petitioners then filed an Urgent Motion to Recall Entry
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e.,
of Judgment.
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
by the evidence on record; or mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Issue:
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly But these findings are not infallible. When there is a
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in WON such Motion should be granted and RA 9355 is
by the parties, which, if properly considered, disregard of the evidence on record, they may be constitutional.
would justify a different conclusion. examined by the courts.
Held:
In this case, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals In this case, the NLRC sustained the factual findings of
are different from those of the NLRC and the Labor the Labor Arbiter. Thus, these findings are generally Yes and yes. COMELEC Resolution No. 8790 spawned
Arbiter. These conflicting findings led to the setting binding on the appellate court, unless there was a the peculiar circumstance of proper party interest for
aside showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in movants-intervenors only with the specter of the
by the Court of Appeals of the decision of the NLRC disregard of the evidence on record. Questioned in a decision in the main case becoming final and executory.
which affirmed the Labor Arbiter. In view thereof, we petition for certiorari under Rule 65, these factual More importantly, if the intervention be not
deem a review of the instant case proper. findings were reexamined and reversed by the Court of entertained, the movants-intervenors would be left with
(2) The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC Appeals for being “not in accord with the evidence on no other remedy as regards to the impending
decisions via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 has record and the applicable law or jurisprudence.” To nullification of their election to their respective
been settled as early as our decision in St. Martin determine if the Court of Appeals’ eexamination of positions. Thus, to the Courts mind, there is an
Funeral Home v. NLRC. In said case, we held that the factual findings and reversal of the NLRC decision are
16
imperative to grant the Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of - Jomoc heirs executed again a Deed of Extrajudicial - Respondents filed a complaint for legal redemption
Judgment by movants-intervenors. Settlement with Absolute Sale of Registered Land in with RTC of Misamis Oriental praying that they be
allowed to exercise their right to redeem.
Despite the new province not meeting the requirements favor of sps. Lim and the latter intervened in the civil
for land area and population, the SC held the creation of case. - On April 27, 1994, RTC resolved the case in favor of
the same as valid since the intention of the framers of the respondents ordering the petitioner to allow the
the LGC w/c provides the aforementioned - Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioner. respondents to exercise their substantive right of legal
requirements, the primary consideration in the creation redemption and shares of plaintiff’s co-heirs.
of a province is the annual income. Dinagat province - CA affirmed RTC’s decision
showed an income of at - In a resolution, RTC granted petitioner’s motion of
- Heirs of Jomoc and Sps. Lim filed separate petitions for reconsideration. Respondent moved for MR and RTC
least 4 times more than the legally required 20M. The review with SC issued an order granting respondent’s MR reinstating
delivery of basic services to its constituents has been previous ruling.
- SC ruled that the petitioner has better right over the
proven possible and sustainable. Rather than looking at
property and became final and executory on Nov. 25, THIRD CASE
the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010
elections as mere fait accompli circumstances which 1991
cannot operate in favor of Dinagats existence as a - Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with
province, they must be seen from the perspective that RTC
- Petitioner filed a motion for execution.
Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province.
- RTC denied for failure to show that judgment is tainted
This Court should not be instrumental in stunting such - Respondents opposed because they did not participate
with grave abuse of discretion and for being the
capacity. in the sale and are not parties to the case.
wrong remedy
Heirs of Maura So vs. Obliosca - Trial Court granted the motion for execution. Register
of deeds cancelled title of Jomoc Heirs and issued a - Court likewise denied petitioner’s MR
FACTS:
TCT in the name of the petitioner. - Minute Resolution became final and executory.
Pantaleon Jomoc was the owner of a parcel of land in
Cagayan De Oro. The property was inherited by his SECOND CASE - Petitioner filed with CA a petition for annulment of
heirs including the respondents (Jomoc Heirs). Jomoc judgment.
Heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial settlement with - Jomoc heirs filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
Absolute Sale of Registered Land in favor of the on the ground that the Respondents were not parties to - CA denied.
Petitioner (Maura So). 3 of the respondents (Lucila,
the case and are being deprived of their right over the - CA also denied petitioner’s MR
Abundia and Elvira) failed to sign the document and the
property.
document was not notarized but, the petitioner still
made partial payment for the property. Petitioner 
- CA dismissed on the ground that respondents were
demanded the execution of a final deed of conveyance
aware of the pendency of the case but did not intervene Hence this petition.
but the Jomoc Heirs refused. Petitioner then filed a
Complaint for specific performance against the Jomoc and that the case is barred by res judicata. ISSUE/S:
Heirs to execute and deliver the deed of sale.
- Respondents filed a petition for review on certiorari WON annulment of judgment is the proper remedy --
FIRST CASE with the SC but was denied. NO
- A civil case was filed against the Jomoc heirs except for - Resolution became final and executory on June 20, HELD:
the 3 respondents who failed to sign. 1994
17
The annulment of judgment is only allowed in adherence to the doctrine of immutability of final From the preceding arguments and counter-arguments,
exceptional cases and may not be invoked where (1) judgments would involve the sacrifice of justice for the threshold issues proper for this Court's
where the party has availed himself of the remedy of technicality. consideration are, given the facts of the case, whether or
new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate not the Court of Appeals erred in: 1) making the
remedy and lost OR (2) where he has failed to avail of Petition is granted. Spouses Magaling and Termo Loans jointly and
himself of those remedies through his own fault or severally liable to Ong for... the obligation incurred by
negligence. Since the petitioner availed of a petition for Magaling vs. Ong the corporation;
review on certiorari under Rule 45, the remedy of
Facts: Ruling:
annulment of judgment is no longer available.
CA-... which made petitioner Lucia Magaling, together The petition is not meritorious.
The present case is peculiar in the sense that it involves with her spouse, Reynaldo Magaling,[5] and Termo[6]
3 final and executory judgments. Loans Credit It is basic that a corporation is a juridical entity with
legal personality separate and distinct from those acting
1. This Court's Decision in which upheld the sale of the Corporation, jointly and severally liable to respondent for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people
whole property by the Jomoc heirs, including the herein Peter Ong for the corporate obligation of the comprising it.
aforenamed corporation as adjudged in the RTC
respondents, to petitioner Maura So. Decision dated 23 June 1999. There are times, however, when solidary liabilities... s
may be incurred and the veil of corporate fiction may be
2. The Court's Resolution in which sustained the order against the spouses Reynaldo Magaling and Lucila pierced
of execution of the said decision against the herein Magaling (Spouses Magaling) and Termo Loans Credit
Corporation (Termo Loans). Exceptional circumstances warranting such disregard of
respondents despite the fact that they were not party- a separate personality are summarized as follows:
defendants in the first case. Complaint alleged that:
When directors and trustees or, in appropriate case, the
3. The Court's Minute Resolution which denied Maura Sps. Reynaldo Magaling and Lucila Magaling are the officers of a corporation:
So's petition for review of the RTC Decision granting controlling stockholders/owners of Thermo (sic) Loans
and Credit Corp. and had used the corporation as mere (a) vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the
respondents' right to redeem the property. alter ego or adjunct to evade the payment of valid corporation;
obligation... defendant Reynaldo Magaling, (sic)
(b) act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing
3rd judgment is in conflict with the 2 previous approached plaintiff in his store at Lipa City and
the corporate affairs;
judgments. The ruling that the respondents remained induced him to lend him money and/or his company
owners to the land is patently erroneous because this Thermo (sic) Loans and Credit Corp. with undertaking (c) are guilty of conflict of interest to the prejudice of
SC had already pronounced in the first 2 cases that the to pay interest the corporation, its stockholders or members, and other
whole property had already been sold to Maura So. RTC persons;[41]
was barred from holding otherwise under the doctrine Based on the assurance and representation of Reynaldo
of conclusiveness of judgment which precludes the re- Magaling, Peter Ong extended loan to defendants. As of When a director or officer has consented to the issuance
litigation of a particular fact already passed upon by a September 1997, the principal loan extended to of watered down stocks or who, having knowledge
court. defendants stands at P350,000.00... postdated checks... thereof, did not forthwith file with the corporate
d... dishonored... ishonored bu secretary his written objection thereto;[42]
It behooves the court to set things right in order to
Despite demands, oral and written,... , refused and When a director, trustee or officer has contractually
prevent a grave injustice from being committed against
neglected and still fail agreed or stipulated to hold himself personally and
Maura So who had, for 15 years since the first decision
was executed, already considered herself to be the solidarily liable with the corporation;[43] or
Issues:
owner of the property. The Court is not precluded from
rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn
18
When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific In order to pierce the veil of corporate fiction, for A.
provision of law, personally liable for his corporate reasons of negligence by the director, trustee or officer
action.[44] in the conduct of the transactions of the corporation, No more, Your Honor, because no Directors attended
such negligence must be gross. Gross negligence is one the meeting.
In making the Spouses Magaling co-defendants of that is characterized by the want of even slight care,...
Termo Loans, Ong alleged in his Complaint for Sum of Where are now the financial records of the company?
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a
Money filed with the RTC that the spouses Reynaldo duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and Q.
Magaling and Lucia Magaling were the controlling intentionally with a conscious indifference to
stockholders and/or owners of Termo Loans, and that How about your own personal records
consequences insofar as other persons may be
they had used the... corporation to evade the payment of affected;[47] and must be established by clear and... A.
a valid obligation. The appellate court eventually found convincing evidence. Parenthetically, gross or willful
the Spouses Magaling equally liable with Termo Loans negligence could amount to bad faith.[48] I do not know
for the sum of money sought to be collected by Ong.
In the case at bar, in their Memorandum filed before the Q. Where you tried to retrieve or will you try to retrieve
As explained above, to hold a director, a trustee or an RTC, the Spouses Magaling argued that "the Amended the financial statement of this company
officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation Complaint did not allege that Reynaldo Magaling was
and, thus, pierce the veil of corporate fiction, bad faith Reynaldo Magaling's very own testimony gave reason
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the
or gross negligence by the director, trustee or officer in for the appellate court's finding of gross negligence on
affairs of the corporation"; and that respondent
directing the corporate affairs must be... established his part. Instead of the intended effect of refuting the
clearly and convincingly. Bad faith is a question of fact Ong was not able to adduce evidence to offset the effect supposition that Termo Loans was assiduously
and is evidentiary. Bad faith does not connote bad of the particular allegation. Hence, they insist that it was managed, Reynaldo Magaling's foregoing testimony
judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose unfair for the appellate court to conclude that Reynaldo only convincingly... displayed his gross negligence in the
or some moral obliquity and conscious wrongdoing. It Magaling failed to exercise the necessary diligence in conduct of the affairs of Termo Loans. From our
means breach of a known duty through some ill... running Termo Loans. standpoint, his casual manner, insouciance and
motive or interest. It partakes of the nature of fraud nonchalance, nay, indifference, to the predicament of
We disagree. the distressed corporation glaringly exhibited a
In the present case, there is nothing substantial on lackadaisical attitude from a top... office of a
record to show that Reynaldo Magaling, as President of Reynaldo Magaling's gross negligence became apparent,
corporation, a conduct totally abhorrent in the
Termo Loans, has, indeed, acted in bad faith in inviting undeniable and proven during the course of the
corporate world.
Ong to invest in Termo Loans and/or in obtaining a loan proceedings in the trial court. Reynaldo Magaling was
from Ong for said corporation in order to warrant his... the lone witness presented in court to belie the claim of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
personal liability. From all indications, the proceeds of Ong. On cross-examination, he (Reynaldo Magaling) is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed 31 August 2005
the investment and/or loan were indeed utilized by clearly and... plainly shed light on how Termo Loans was Decision and 28 June 2006 Amended Decision, both of
Termo Loans. Likewise, bad faith does not arise just run under his aegis... businessman engaged in similar the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70954, are
because a corporation fails to pay its obligations, lines of lending company and being the President, the hereby AFFIRMED.
because the inability to pay one's obligation is not former President of Themo (sic) Loans, you had .... you
were furnished with final.... with financial statement of Valmonte vs. CA
synonymous... with fraudulent intent not to honor the
obligations. the company... was it not?
Facts: Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, this Court A. resident. Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo are husband
still cannot totally absolve Reynaldo Magaling from any and wife both residents of U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D.
I do not remember that, sir.
liability considering his gross negligence in directing the Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar,
affairs of Termo Loans; thus, he must be made did not call a meeting of the Directors and other stock however, practices his profession in the Philippines,
personally liable for the debt of Termo Loans to Ong holders that your company is going down? commuting for this purpose between his residence in
19
the state of Washington and Manila, where he holds quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less
office at Ermita, Manila. purpose of affecting the defendant’s interest in a than sixty (60) days after notice.
specific property and not to render a judgment against
Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister him. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident Trader Royal Bank vs. IAC
of petitioner filed an action for partition of real and who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons
property and accounting of rentals against petitioners. on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, § 17. Such Facts: RTC Pasay: Traders Royal Bank Instituted a suit
She alleged that, the plaintiff is of legal age, a widow and service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be against Remco Alcohol Distillery, Inc. (REMCO) for the
is at present a resident of Missouri, U.S.A., while the made either: recovery of sum of Php 2,382,258.71 (civil case 9894)
defendants are spouses but, for purposes of this Traders obtained a writ of preliminary attachment
complaint may be served with summons at Gedisco (1) by personal service; directed against the assets and properties of REMCO
Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila Pursuant to the attachment, Sheriff Santiago levied
where defendant Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant (2) by publication in a newspaper of general 4,600 barrels of aged alcohol found within the premises
Lourdes Arreola Valmonte’s spouse holds office and circulation in such places and for such time as the court of Remco Inc. La Tondena filed a third party claim with
where he can be found. He husband was also her may order, in which case a copy of the summons and the Sheriff, claiming ownership over the property. RTC
counsel, who has a law office in the Philippines. The order of the court should be sent by registered mail to Pasay: La Tondena filed a complaint-in-intervention in
summons were served on her husband. the last known address of the defendant; or civil case 9894, alleging that it made advances to
REMCO amounting to Php 3 million which remains
Petitioner in a letter, referred private respondent’s (3) in any other manner which the court may outstanding as of date and that the attached properties
counsel to her husband as the party to whom all deem sufficient. are owned by La Tondena. Without foregoing
communications intended for her should be sent. complaint-in-intervention having passed upon by the
Service of summons was then made upon petitioner In the case at bar, the service of summons upon Pasay RTC, a “Motion to Withdraw,” praying that it be
Alfredo at his office in Manila. Alfredo D. Valmonte petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done by means allowed to withdraw alcohol and molasses from REMCO
accepted his summons, but not the one for Lourdes, on of any of the first two modes. This mode of service, like plant, was granted.
the ground that he was not authorized to accept the the first two, must be made outside the Philippines,
process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign Pasay RTC reconsidered its order granting “motion to
left without leaving a copy of the summons and country where the defendant resides. The service of withdraw” and declared the alcohol which has not been
complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte. summons on petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not withdrawn remains in the ownership of REMCO and
made upon the order of the court as required by Rule denied La Tondena’s motion to intervene. La Tondena
Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his 14, § 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient filed a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating its
Answer with Counterclaim. Petitioner Lourdes A. by the court which in fact refused to consider the request to withdraw alcohol from Remco Distillery
Valmonte, however, did not file her Answer. For this service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Plant and they prayed that the portion of the order
reason private respondent moved to declare her in Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an declaring REMCO as the owner of the alcohol be
default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte entered a special answer. reconsidered and stricken off said order. RTC Bulacan:
appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the La Tondena instituted Civil Case 7003-M, in which it
private respondent’s motion. RTC denied the MR of Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on asserted its claim of ownership over the properties
respondents. CA declared petitioner Lourdes in default. petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial attached in Civil Case 9894 and also prayed for the
Said decision was received by Alfredo hence this court as required also in Rule 14, § 17. As provided in § issuance of writ of preliminary injunction. Traders filed
petition. 19, such leave must be applied for by motion in writing, a motion to dismiss or opposition to the application of
supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on writ of preliminary injunction. La Tondena opposed
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the Traders’ motion to dismiss.
was validly served with summons. application.
RTC Bulacan: issued an order declaring La Tondena to
Held: NO. There was no valid service of summons on Finally, because there was no order granting such leave, be the owner of the disputed alcohol and granting their
Lourdes. The action herein is in the nature of an action petitioner Lourdes was not given ample time to file her application for injunctive relief. RTC Pasay: issued an
20
order requiring Sheriff Santiago to : (1) enforce the writ This precisely was the remedy resorted to by private moved to Poblacion Sur, Bayambang, Pangasinan7 and,
of preliminary attachment previously issued by the respondent La Tondeñ a when it filed the vindicatory later, to Lipa, Batangas. STRADEC fully paid and owned
court and (2) prevent respondent Sheriff and La action before the Bulacan Court. The issue in this case 49% of the 5,000,000 shares of stock into which SIDC’s
Tondena from withdrawing disputed alcohol and (3) to was already decided in Manila Herald Publishing Inc. vs authorized capital stock.
require them to explain and show cause why they Ramos which states:
should not be cited for contempt for withdrawing In 2004, respondents Yujuico and Sumbilla, in
attached alcohol. Intermediate Appellate Court: Traders The judge trying such action may render judgment their respective capacities as then President and
bank filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with ordering the sheriff of whoever has in possession the Treasurer of STRADEC, executed a Promissory Note for
application for writ of preliminary injunction to set attached property to deliver it to the plaintiff-claimant and in consideration of a loan in the sum
aside the order by RTC Bulacan in Civil Case 7003-M or desist from seizing it. It follows further that the court ofP10,000,000.00 ostensibly extended in favor of said
and to compel La Tondena to return the alcohol to their may make an interlocutory order, upon the filing of corporation by respondent Robert L. Wong, one of the
original location. such bond as may be necessary, to release the property incorporators of SIDC.9 As security for the payment of
pending final adjudication of the title. Jurisdiction over the principal as well as the stipulated interests thereon,
IAC dismissed the petition for lack of legal and factual an action includes jurisdiction over an interlocutory a pledge constituted over STRADEC’s entire
basis, holding that the Judge did not commit grave matter incidental to the cause and deemed necessary to shareholdings in SIDC was executed by respondent
abuse of discretion in issuing the order and the writ of preserve the subject matter of the suit or protect the Yujuico on 1 April 2005.10
preliminary injunction. Appeal to SC. parties' interests.
In view of STRADEC’s repeated default on its
Issue/s: Whether or not the Judge of RTC Bulacan acted The rule that no court has the power to interfere by obligations,11 however, the shares thus pledged were
without jurisdiction in entertaining Civil Case 7003-M injunction with the judgments or decrees of a sold by way of the 26 April 2005 notarial sale conducted
and in authorizing the issuance of a writ of preliminary concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal in Makati City by respondent Raymond M. Caraos.
injunction – No power to grant the injunctive relief sought by Having tendered the sole bid of P11,800,000.00,12
injunction, is applied in cases where no third-party respondent Wong was issued the corresponding
Whether or not the order of the Bulacan court claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from certificates of stocks by respondent Bede S. Tabalingcos,
constitutes undue and illegal interference with the nullifying the judgment or process of another court of SIDC’s Corporate Secretary for the years 2004 and
exercise by the Pasay court of its coordinate and co- the same rank or category, a power which devolves 2005, after the transfer was recorded in the
equal authority on matters properly brought before it. – upon the proper appellate court . The purpose of the corporation’s stock and transfer book.13
No rule is to avoid conflict of power between different
courts of coordinate jurisdiction and to bring about a In 2006,Quiambao, in his capacity as President
Held: The instant petition is hereby dismissed and the harmonious and smooth functioning of their and Chairman of the Board of Directors of STRADEC,
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. proceedings commenced the instant suit with the filing of the
No. SP-01860 is affirmed, with costs against petitioner petition before a commercial court in Batangas City
Traders Royal Bank. The applicable provision is Section Strategic Alliance Development Corp vs. Star alleging four causes of action, to wit: that respondents
14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. The foregoing rule Infrastructure Development Corp. Yujuico and Sumbilla were not authorized to enter into
explicitly sets forth the remedy that may be availed of any loan agreement with respondent Wong, that the
by a person who claims to be the owner of property Petitioner Strategic Alliance Development Corporation auction sale was held in a wrong venue, that the
levied upon by attachment which is: (STRADEC) is a domestic corporation primarily engaged transfer of STRADED shares in SIDC was made
in the business of a development with principal place of fraudulently and that the 30 July 2005 annual
(1) To lodge a third- party claim with the sheriff, business at Bayambang, Pangasinan t. Along with five stockholders meeting and 20 July 2006 special
individuals4 and three other corporations,5 STRADEC stockholder’s meeting of SIDC where the change of
(2) And if the attaching creditor posts an incorporated respondent Star Infrastructure principal place of business was approved is invalid
indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate Development Corporation (SIDC) for the purpose of pending determination of the legitimate Board of
and independent action to vindicate his claim (Abiera engaging in the general construction business with the Directors for STRADEC.
vs. Court of Appeals, 45 SCRA 314). original principal place of business at Pasig City, then
21
Issue: Whether or not the cause of action of petitioners has, consequently, become the norm in determining to rid STRADEC of its shares in SIDC and its right as a
is an intra-corporate dispute. whether a case is an intra-corporate controversy or is stockholder to participate in the latter’s corporate
purely civil in character. affairs.
Ruling:
In the case at bench, STRADEC’s first and Moreover, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic
Meritorious. second causes of action seek the nullification of the loan Act No. 8799,41 otherwise known as the Securities
and pledge over its SIDC shareholding contracted by Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all
An intra-corporate dispute is understood as a respondents Yujuico, Sumbilla and Wong as well the cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential
suit arising from intra-corporate relations or between avoidance of the notarial sale of said shares conducted Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs
or among stockholders or between any or all of them by respondent Caraos. designated by this Court as SCCs42 pursuant to A.M. No.
and the corporation. Applying what has come to be 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000.
known as the relationship test, it has been held that the Applying the relationship test, we find that
types of actions embraced by the foregoing definition STRADEC’s first and second causes of action qualify as On the issue of venue and jurisdiction, unlike
include the following suits: (a) between the corporation, intra-corporate disputes since said corporation and the SEC which is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction,
partnership or association and the public; (b) between respondent Wong are incorporators and/or special commercial courts (SCC) like the RTC are still
the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders of SIDC. Having acquired STRADEC’s competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-
stockholders, partners, members, or officers; (c) shares thru the impugned notarial sale conducted by corporate disputes filed before them.
between the corporation, partnership or association respondent Caraos, respondent Wong appears to have
and the State insofar as its franchise, permit or license further transferred said shares in favor of CTCII, a Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 directs merely the
to operate is concerned; and, (d) among the corporation he allegedly formed with members of his Supreme Court's designation of RTC branches that shall
stockholders, partners or associates themselves. As the own family. By reason of said transfer, CTCII became a exercise jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes.
definition is broad enough to cover all kinds of stockholder of SIDC and was, in fact, alleged to have Nothing in the language of the law suggests the
controversies between stockholders and corporations, been recognized as such by the latter and its corporate diminution of jurisdiction of those RTCs to be
the traditional interpretation was to the effect that the officers. designated as SCCs. The assignment of intra-corporate
relationship test brooked no distinction, qualification or disputes to SCCs is only for the purpose of streamlining
any exemption whatsoever. Considering that they fundamentally relate to the workload of the RTCs so that certain branches
STRADEC’s status as a stockholder and the alleged thereof like the SCCs can focus only on a particular
However, the unqualified application of the fraudulent divestment of its stockholding in SIDC, the subject matter.
relationship test has been modified on the ground that same causes of action also qualify as intra-corporate
the same effectively divests regular courts of disputes under the nature of the controversy test. As The RTC exercising jurisdiction over an intra-
jurisdiction over cases for the sole reason that the suit is part of the fraud which attended the transfer of its corporate dispute can be likened to an RTC exercising
between the corporation and/or its corporators. It was shares, STRADEC distinctly averred, among other its probate jurisdiction or sitting as a special agrarian
held that the better policy in determining which body matters, that respondents Yujuico and Sumbilla had no court. The designation of the SCCs as such has not in any
has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not authority to contract a loan with respondent Wong; that way limited their jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
only the status or relationship of the parties but also the the pledge executed by respondent Yujuico was of all nature, whether civil, criminal or special
nature of the question that is the subject of their simulated since it did not receive the proceeds of the proceedings.
controversy.33 Under the nature of the controversy loan for which its shares in SIDC were set up as security;
test, the dispute must not only be rooted in the that irregularities attended the notarial sale conducted At any rate, it cannot be gainsaid that
existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must by respondent Caraos who sold said shares to STRADEC correctly commenced its petition before the
also refer to the enforcement of the parties' correlative respondent Wong; that the latter unlawfully transferred RTC exercising jurisdiction over SIDC’s principal place
rights and obligations under the Corporation Code as the same shares in favor of CTCII; and, that SIDC and its of business which was alleged to have been transferred
well as the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules officers recognized and validated said transfers despite from Bayambang, Pangasinan to Lipa, Batangas.51 It
of the corporation.34 The combined application of the being alerted about their defects. Ultimately, the matters little that STRADEC, as pointed out by
relationship test and the nature of the controversy test foregoing circumstances were alleged to have combined respondents, also questions the validity of the 30 July
22
2005 SIDC stockholders’ annual meeting where the and public policy and the structures found within the executory.23 At the very least, their rights under the
aforesaid change in the address of its principal place of unfinished PADRE GARCIA SHOPPING CENTER are MOA are precisely disputed by respondent. Hence, there
business was allegedly approved. Said matter should be hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Municipality of can be no "clear and unmistakable" right in favor of
properly threshed out in the proceedings before the Padre Garcia. petitioners to warrant the issuance of a writ of
RTC alongside such issues as the validity of the injunction. Where the complainant’s right or title is
transfers of STRADEC’s shares to respondents Wong After learning of the adverse judgment, petitioners filed doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper.2
and CTCII, the propriety of the recording of said a Petition for Relief from Judgment. This Petition was
transfers in SIDC’s books, STRADEC’s status as a denied by the RTC. Petitioners later filed before the CA a Allgemeine-Bau-Chemie Phils. Vs. Metropolitan
stockholder of SIDC, the legality of the 20 July 2006 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. Also, petitioners Bank
SIDC stockholders’ special meeting or, for that matter, filed before the CA a Motion for the Issuance of Status
Cezar T. Quiambao’s authority to represent STRADEC in Quo Order and Motion for Issuance of Temporary Allgemein filed before Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court
the case at bench.1avvphi1 Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary a motion for intervention, with prayer for the
Injunction. The CA issued a Resolution denying the said annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale,
On the principle that a corporation is a legal entity with motion. delivery of title, and damages and for the issuance of a
a personality separate and distinct from its individual temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
stockholders or members and from that of its officers Issue: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of injunction enjoining respondent Metropolitan Bank &
who manage and run its affairs,56 we find that the other discretion in denying petitioners’ Motion for the Trust Co. (Metrobank) to consolidate its title and take
pending actions have little or no bearing to the issues Issuance of Status Quo Order and Motion for Issuance of possession of its properties. The RTC, however, denied
set forth in STRADEC’spetition which, at bottom, Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of the same.
involve the transfer of its own shareholding in SIDC and Preliminary Injunction (Motion for Injunction).
its status and rights as such stockholder Hence, Allgemein filed a separate petition for the
Ruling: NO. The CA did not commit grave abuse of
discretion. Essential to granting the injunctive relief is issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of
Australian Professional Realty vs. Municipality of
the existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. The
Padre Garcia
to prevent serious damage. A TRO issues only if the CA denied Allgemein‘s prayer for the issuance of a writ
Facts: Fire razed to the ground the old public market of matter is of such extreme urgency that grave injustice of preliminary injunction for failure to establish a clear
respondent Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas. The and irreparable injury would arise unless it is issued and unmistakable right to the subject properties.
municipal government, invited petitioner Australian immediately. Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ,
Professional Realty, Inc. (APRI) to rebuild the public petitioners must show that (1) there exists a clear and ISSUE:
market and construct a shopping center. A unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)2 was executed directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) Whether or not the appellate court committed grave
between petitioner APRI and respondent, represented the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and error in denying Allgemein‘s prayer for a writ of
by Mayor Gutierrez. (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the preliminary injunction
writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.
Victor Reyes was elected as municipal mayor of HELD:
respondent. Respondent, through Mayor Reyes, In this case, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed
initiated a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of to the CA. This is so because APRI has no clear legal
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an
Memorandum of Agreement with Damages before the right. A perusal of the Motion for Injunction and its
action and hence, the jurisdiction of a court, are the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas. accompanying Affidavit filed before the CA shows that
allegations of the complaint and the character of the
petitioners rely on their alleged right to the full and
The RTC issued an Order declaring petitioners in default relief sought. Allgemein‘s only prayer in CA-G.R. No.
faithful execution of the MOA. However, their rights
71217 is “for the preservation of the status quo, that is,
and allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte. under the MOA have already been declared inferior or
Allgemein, having in possession over the subject
The RTC ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement is inexistent in relation to respondent in the RTC case,
properties for several years, shall retain such
hereby declared null and void for being contrary to law under a judgment that has become final and
23
possession until the controversy before the said trial - Meantime, the Sheriff of Branch 6, Sheriff Gerard Peter ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, abuse of
court has been finally resolved and Metrobank be Gaje, served a notice of garnishment on MSUs funds discretion and/or grave misconduct prejudicial to the
prevented from taking over such possession.” with the Land Bank of the Philippines Marawi City interest of the judicial service. The Office of the Court
Branch by reason of MSUs failure to obey the writ. Administrator (OCA) found ground to hold Judge
Clearly, what Allgemein filed with the appellate court Balindong guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
was an original action for preliminary injunction which - On April 1, 2009, to prevent seizure of its Land Bank interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court. It
is a provisional and extra-ordinary remedy calculated to deposits that it needed for operations, MSU filed a recommended the imposition of a fine of P40,000.00 on
preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is special civil action of prohibition and mandamus with Judge Balindong with a stern warning against a future
availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the application for the issuance of a temporary restraining offense.
merits of the case can be heard. order (TRO) and, subsequently, a preliminary injunction
before the RTC Branch 8, presided over by respondent Issue:
An original action for injunction is outside the acting presiding judge, Judge Rasad G. Balindong, WON not Judge Balindong of RTC Branch 8 acted with
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, however. Under B.P. against Land Bank and Sheriff Gaje gross ignorance of the law when he issued the TRO,
129, the appellate court has original jurisdiction only pending hearing on the application for preliminary
over actions for annulment of judgments of the RTCs - In its petition, MSU averred that it is a state university, injunction that enjoined Sheriff Gaje from garnishing
and has original jurisdiction to issue writs of funded by appropriations law enacted by Congress; that MSUs Congress-appropriated operating funds for the
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and despite OSG opposition to the issuance of a writ of satisfaction of the judgment of RTC Branch 6 – in effect,
quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes whether execution against it, such writ was issued and Sheriff violating the Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-
or not they are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Gaje garnished upon MSUs deposits with Land Bank, Interference
who in turn gave notice to MSU that it was putting on
hold the sum ofP2,726,189.90 on its deposit, that this Ruling:
Thus, for want of jurisdiction, the petition before the
money being government funds, Sheriff Gaje was -The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in
appellate court should have been dismissed outright.
executing on the same in violation of Commission on the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an
Audit (COA) Circular 2001-002 dated July 31, 2001 and elementary principle in the administration of justice: No
Cabili vs.Balindog
SC Administrative Circular 10-2000; and that unless court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or
restrained, the garnishment of government fund would orders of another court of concurrent
Facts:
disrupt MSUs operations. jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought
-Complainant Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili (Atty. Cabili) was
by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded
counsel of the Heirs of Jesus Ledesma in the latter’s
-After due hearing, Judge Balindong issued a TRO, on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires
action for damages against the Mindanao State
enjoining Land Bank and Sheriff Gaje from proceeding jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein
University (MSU) and others arising from the death of
with the garnishment of the MSU deposit with Land has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of
the late Jesus Ledesma in Civil Case 06-254 of the
Bank. To determine whether the issuance of a writ of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 6.
preliminary injunction was warranted, Judge Balindong over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance
heard the parties and required them to submit of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting
-The RTC rendered judgment against the defendants,
memoranda. Instead of submitting a memorandum, in connection with this judgment.
including MSU, ordering them to pay damages to the
Sheriff Gaje filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
Heirs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
RTC Branch 8 had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction -Where an execution order has been issued is
RTC decision which became final and executory.
order against another court of equal rank. Finding considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings
merit, on April 28, 2009 Judge Balindong issued an on the execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court
- March 6, 2009 the RTC Branch 6 caused the issuance
Order, dismissing the petition. which issued a writ of execution has the inherent
of a writ of execution against the defendants. The Office
- For having initially taken cognizance of the case and power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors
of the Solicitor General (OSG) belatedly filed an
issuing a TRO, Atty. Cabili filed the present of its ministerial officers and to control its own
opposition to the issuance of the writ, resulting in its
administrative action Judge Balindong for gross processes. To hold otherwise would be to divide the
denial on the ground of mootness of the motion.
24