Estrada v. Court of Agrarian RelationsGR Nos. L-17481 and L-17537 to L-17559August 15, 1961FACTS:
The petition filed by the petitioners under dateof June 10, 1961, asking that the manager of theMoncada Bonded Warehouse and respondentFaustino F. Galvan be declared in contempt of court and punished accordingly. Court resolvedon January 6, 1961 granting in favor of the petitionersOn April 12, 1961, petitioners allege that themanager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse iscontinuing to refuse to comply with the aboveCourt resolution unless the original of thereceipts of palay deposits be presented andsurrendered to him.Petitioners could not present any receipt tosurrender due to the fact that a fire has destroyedthe receipts
WON warehouseman could release the palay without the surrender of the originalreceipt
That the manager of the Moncada BondedWarehouse and respondent Faustino F. Galvanwere duly served with notice of the aboveresolutions, and that notwithstanding suchservice of notice and in spite of repeateddemands, the manager of the Moncada BondedWarehouse and respondent Faustino F. Galvanrefused and still refuse to comply with the aboveorders of this Court, the former, for the reasonthat petitioners could not surrender to him theoriginal of the warehouse receipts issued for the palay in question, and the latter, because, as healleged in his answer to the motion for contempt, he could not locate any more saidreceipts
"as they were scattered, misplaced, destroyed or lost when the contents of the Office of said respondent-appellee, Faustino F. Galvan, in theGalvan-Cabrera Building in Ylaya Street, Manila, were being desperately evacuated therefrom during the fire which burned the Divisoria market and said Galvan-Cabrera Building in Ylaya Street, Manila, in the latter part of May, 1961."
The excuses respectively offered by the manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse andrespondent Faustino F. Galvan are not withoutsome merits.The former unquestionably had the right to protect the interest of the bonded warehouse of which he was manager, as the warehousereceipts issued for the palay in question mighthave been for the value in favor of innocent third parties; and the latter, or Faustino F. Galvan,might have in fact lost said warehouse receiptsin the manner above stated, for his allegation tothe effect in his answer to petitioners' motion for contempt until now has not been contradicted.Such incidents, however, do not constitute avalid excuse to evade compliance with the order of this Court that the palay in question bedelivered to the petitioners, and, considering thatthe petitioners, according to the manifestationfiled by their counsel under date of August 3,1961, are in dire need of said palay for their subsistence, our order must be carried out in themeantime that this cases have not been finallydecided in order to ameliorate the precarioussituation in which said petitioners findthemselves.
Where the court ordered the manager of the bonded warehouse to deliver the deposited palay to certain specified parties, and the person ordered to present the original warehouse receipts failed todo so because they were allegedly lost in a fire, the court may order said manager to releasethe palay to the proper parties upon their issuing a receipt therefore without necessity of producing and surrendering the original receipts
Consolidated Terminals Inc v. ArtexDevelopment Co IncGR No. L-25748March 10, 1975