This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALABAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005
On 8 November 2000, respondent Francisco Provido (respondent) filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado (“decedent).On 30 May 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, in P.D. Monfort North, Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered its Decision, allowing the probate of the will of the decedent and directing the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent. Thereafter, herein petitioners filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings.On 11 January 2002, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioners’ motion for being unmeritorious. Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an application for preliminary injunction with the CA, seeking the annulment of the RTC’s Decision dated 30 May 2001 and Order dated 11 January 2002. In its Resolution promulgated on 28 February 2002, the CA dismissed the petition. It found that there was no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Resolution, but the same was denied by the CA for lack of merit. Issue: Whether or not the proper remedy is an annulment of judgment or the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief for judgement and other appropriate remedies
Section 37 of the Rules of Court allows an aggrieved party to file a motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The same Rule permits the filing of a motion for reconsideration on the grounds of excessive award of damages, insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law. Meanwhile, a petition for relief from judgment under Section 3 of Rule 38 is resorted to when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken, against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. A motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot avail of a petition for relief
the CA issued the June 2. Atty. they could have still filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. Rule 37 DE LOS SANTOS vs. filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Appeal. 48475 and considering them withdrawn. the CA issued the assailed Decision dismissing CA-G. that they never entered into any amicable settlement with respondents delos Santos. Said motion sought the withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that petitioners and respondents delos Santos entered into an amicable settlement on May 11. with petitioners praying for the reopening of the case and the setting of further proceedings. After due hearing of the case.9 requiring petitioners and respondent Elizalde to file their briefs. ELIZALDE February 2.As parties to the probate proceedings. 1986. 2007 Facts: On December 15. 1996. Victoriano.from judgment. petitioners filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title. petitioners in this case are mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not become parties to the probate proceedings. Thus. the motion was denied for having been filed out of time. Damages and Attorney’s Fees before the Kalibo. which was verified solely by petitioner Vicente delos Santos. Aklan RTC. However. petitioners could no longer resort to a petition for annulment of judgment. wherein it was ruled that: The "Motion for Reconsideration With Prayer for the Reinstatement of Appeal" filed on June 17. the trial court issued the April 29. On January 31. Malay. petitioners filed a motion to reopen. petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Decision with Prayer for Reinstatement of Appeal. On the same day. petitioners. CV No. Subsequently. 1999. 2000.8 respectively. petitioners could have validly availed of the remedies of motion for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment. A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem. through their former counsel Atty. For failure to make use without sufficient justification of the said remedies available to them.R. On April 8. Victoriano. long after the Decision became final and executory. 1996 Decision. to withdraw their appeal. and that they never authorized their former counsel. In their Motion for Reconsideration. otherwise. Conceding that petitioners became aware of the Decision after it had become final.In fact. Aklan. involving four (4) adjoining lots designated located in Boracay Island.However. Petitioners and respondent Fred Elizalde filed their separate Notices of Appeal dated June 6. the CA issued the assailed Resolution. which is essentially a motion for new trial. Napoleon M. 1998 Notice to File Brief. 54136 and SP No. 1999. they would benefit from their own inaction or negligence. such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court’s jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent. petitioners alleged that they did not have any knowledge of the promulgation of the assailed Decision of the CA. 1999 by the said . 1996 7 and May 16.
1999. 1 and Rule 41 Sec. Rule 38 Haj Pernes PURCON vs. the assailed CA Decision was rendered on May 11. 3) The fifteen (15)-day period should run from May 24. Atty.(Refer to Rule 37 Sec. Verano. on May 24. Petitioners’ current counsel. 1999. In the present case. and the notice of it was received by Atty. when Atty. Victoriano. On June 2002. 1998. 1999 is the correct reckoning point for the reglementary period of filing a Motion for Reconsideration to the assailed Decision which ended on June 8. and not from June 2. May 24. 182718. in conjunction with Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Thus. petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 17. 2002. Hence. he was diagnosed with hernia.R. Victoriano on May 24. September 26. petitioner felt an excruciating pain in his left testicle. 1999. 1999. which is considered notice to petitioners themselves. when petitioners claimed to have been informed of the CA decision. 1999 Ruling: Section 1 of Rule 37. received a copy of said Decision on May 24. Victoriano received a copy of the assailed Decision of the CA. The records show that plaintiffsappellants’ counsel of record. . Thus. Atty. petitioner was repatriated due to . The CA correctly served a copy of the Decision on Atty. with the sole conformity of Vicente delos Santos. Issue: Whether or not the filing of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration should be counted from the time when petitioners themselves obtained a copy of the assailed Decision of the CA on June 2. INC. or from the time that their former counsel. filed his appearance only on June 17. Subsequently. Victoriano. 2008 Facts: Petitioner was hired by respondent MRM Philippines. 1999.HAJ G. 1999. to which an Opposition has been filed by the first set of intervenors-appellees. appellants had only until June 8. is DENIED admission for being late by nine (9) days. Victoriano received copy of the Court’s Decision dated May 11.new counsel for plaintiffs-appellants. 1999 to file their Motion for Reconsideration. provides for the period within which a Motion for Reconsideration may be filed. Napoleon M. No. Inc as a seaman on January 28. 1999 was belatedly filed and correctly rejected by the CA. After being examined. 1999. Atty. Therefore. 1999. MRM PHILIPPINES.
Subsequently.However. petitioner filed the instant petition for relief from judgment. the CA resolution became final and executory . A petition for relief from judgment not an available remedy in the Supreme Court. Third.If a petition for relief from judgment is not among the remedies available in the CA. sickness allowance and permanent disability benefits with prayer for compensatory. mistake. motion for reconsideration (Rule 52). petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA). hoping to be re-hired for another contract. which enumerates the original cases cognizable by the Supreme Court. However. When petitioner reported to MRM Philippines. Petitioner a complaint filed by petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses. the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. petitioner was again examined by the company physician and the latter declared that he was fit to resume work. Neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the CA allows the remedy of petition for relief in the CA.his ailment. In Our Resolution dated July 16. a party in any court may file a petition for relief from judgment. which dismissed his petition for certiorari. Thus. Issue: Can petitioner avail of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure from Our resolution denying his petition for review? Ruling: is We answer in the negative. We denied the petition. The procedure in the CA from Rules 44 to 55. with more reason that this remedy cannot be availed of in the Supreme Court. Nowhere is a petition for relief under Rule 38 mentioned. although Section 1 of Rule 38 states that when a judgment or final order is entered through fraud. identifies the remedies available before said Court such as annulment of judgments or final orders or resolutions (Rule 47). while Rule 38 uses the phrase "any court. the CA dismissed the case due to formal infirmities. First.There is no provision in the Rules of Court making the petition for relief applicable in the CA or this Court. accident. this rule must be interpreted in harmony with Rule 56. 2007." it refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts. Upon his return to the Philippines. moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. A petition for relief from judgment is not included in the list of Rule 56 cases originally cognizable by this Court. the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court.Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the resolutions of the CA. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Second. he was told that there was no vacancy for him. with the exception of Rule 45 which pertains to the Supreme Court. Inc. A petition for relief raises . the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit. Thereafter. and new trial (Rule 53). or excusable negligence. On appeal.
but they did not claim the letter. only 57 days had elapsed. Issue: Was the petition provided for by the rules? Ruling: We consider the petition for relief to have been filed on time. or any other proceedings (PHHC v. From the time they had actual knowledge of the order of execution. 1961. 3. 1961. See. 1964). Revised Rules. Rule 38. 1961. the court a quo rendered judgment for the plaintiff. L-18891. addressed to the Sheriff of Quezon City. on April 21. mistake. On January 11. The matter was referred to counsel who presented a Petition for Relief.the main ground being that the petition for relief was presented on time. on June 17. plaintiff Catalina Cayetano instituted a civil case for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. but also to orders. To bolster the argument. that petitions of this nature should be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. 1961. Resolving the petition and the opposition. because a petition for relief may likewise be taken from the order of execution. until the filing of the petition for relief. or negligence. Rule 38 of the Rules was cited. Plaintiff-appellee interposed an opposition to the petition for relief. more than 60 days has elapsed. against defendants-spouses Osmundo Ceguerra and Felina Serrano. Summons and copy of the complaint for foreclosure were served on the defendants within the reglementary period. and according to the provisions of the rules. The said petition for relief was filed beyond the reglementary period thus. A motion to reconsider the above Order was filed. as unclaimed.vi law library Subsequently. The argument in support of the contention is that defendants having actually known of the adverse decision rendered.questions of facts on fraud. 28. It is conceded that defendants received a first registry notice on January 13. order or other proceedings to be set aside. the presentation of the petition on June 17. 1961. the defendants were deemed to for relief presented within the period . Rule 38 CAYETANO vs. five (5) days after the receipt of such first notice. the same having been returned to the Court. it must be denied. 1960. 2. CEGUERRA 13 SCRA 73 Facts: excusable On November 15. This motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. inasmuch as Sec. commanding the latter to seize the goods and chattels of the defendants-appellants in order to satisfy the judgment. among others. thereby giving rise to the presumption that five (5) days after receipt of the first notice. was only 57 days from the former date. 1961. for failure to comply with the rules regarding the three (3) day notice and for lack of merits. This is so. the Court handed down an Order declaring that that the first registry notice for the decision of this Court was received by the defendant on January 13. he is presumed to have received the same when the petition for relief and that when it was filed. It appears that this decision never became known to appellants-spouses. 1961. which are beyond the concerns of this Court. Tiongco & Escasa. accident. wherein it was provided. defendants were served with a copy of a Writ of Execution. does not only refer to judgments. Nov. only on April 21.
like the defendants.have receive the letter. Rules 40 & 41 Rule 40 & 41 Haj Pernes HEIRS OF DORONIO vs. w library CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING. cancellation of OCT No. the Order denying the petition for relief and that denying the motion for reconsideration. the heirs of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico filed before the RTC in Urdaneta. 44481 in the names of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico. however. Pangasinan. now both deceased. This Court. cannot justly attribute upon defendants actual knowledge of the decision. HEIRS OF DORONIO  Facts: Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. Anonas. After due proceedings. while respondents are the heirs of Fortunato Doronio. now both deceased. respondent heirs of Fortunato Doronio (as plaintiffs) filed an action for reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction against petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio (as defendants) before the RTC.During the hearings. Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen. 352 and issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. The petition was for the reconsideration of the decision of the RTC that ordered the registration of the subject deed of donation. 1993. the RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio. Eager to obtain the entire property. Asingan. Pangasinan. It was prayed in the petition that an order be issued declaring null and void the registration of the private deed of donation and that TCT No. are set aside and another entered remanding the case to the court below. were the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Cabalitaan.On April 28. the entire property was titled in the names of petitioners’ predecessors. Petitioners are the heirs of Marcelino Doronio. No respondents were named in the said petition although notices of hearing were posted on the bulletin boards of Barangay Cabalitaan. Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio. were the children of the spouses and the parties in this case are their heirs. Thus. Pangasinan a petition "For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation" docketed as Petition Case No. No costs. However. U-920. Branch 45. Disagreeing with the judgment . 1994. U-920 had already become final as it was not appealed. Urdaneta City. This led to the registration of the deed of donation. for hearing on the merits. U-920. the heirs of Fortunato Doronio filed a pleading before the RTC in the form of a petition in the same Petition Case No. 44481 be cancelled. no one interposed an objection to the petition. We cannot exact a strict accounting of the rules from ordinary mortals. the petition was eventually granted on September 22.Determined to remain in their possessed property. because there is no showing that the registry notice itself contained any indication that the registered letter was a copy of the decision. or that the registry notice referred to the case being ventilated. the petition was dismissed on the ground that the decision in Petition Case No. After the RTC ordered a general default.
the CA reversed the RTC decision. strictly speaking. January 28.Defendant countered with the allegation that reclassification of the land was not approved by the proper authorities and that he was duly constituted as tenant thereof by the previous owner. Bautista sold two (2) lots to plaintiff Gregorio Morales. Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. respondents are not bound by the decision in Petition Case No. but being against the person in respect of the res. nor are they.R.Plaintiffs appealed. U-920 as a shield against the verification of the validity of the deed of donation. The (Regional Trial Court) Judge who heard the case found that the (municipal) court had jurisdiction because the land was duly reclassified from agricultural to residential and that tenancy was not . Sometime in 1972.Finding the land to be agricultural and the fact that tenancy was in issue. in personam. thereby altering its residential outline and appearance. U-920 even if they were not made parties in the said case? Ruling: Petitioners cannot use the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case No. Issue: Can respondents be ndbou nd by the decision in Petition Case No. these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. the said court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Teresa in turn. No. the said final decision is one for quieting of title. Enrique Bautista.Plaintiffs assert that the defendant surreptitiously took possession of their lots and prepared them for planting. they cannot be bound by its orders. it is a case for declaratory relief under Rule 64 (now Rule 63) of the Rules of Court. The municipal court received evidence on the issue of right of possession and the land's proper classification. 126196. As a result. Rules 40 & 41 SPOUSES MORALES vs. His subdivision survey plan was duly approved by the Land Registration Commission.Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem. He also sold four (4) lots to plaintiff Maria Teresa Morales. Bautista caused the subdivision of the land. respondents appealed to the CA.That respondents filed a subsequent pleading in the same Petition Case No. sold three (3) of her purchased lots to three different persons who are likewise plaintiffs in the case. Said subsequent pleading was dismissed on the ground of finality of the decision.In 1979. In other words. The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.of the RTC. 1998) Facts: The lots in question were originally part of one whole parcel devoted to agriculture owned by one Enrique Bautista. U-920 after the decision there had become final did not change the fact that said decision became final without their being impleaded in the case. According to petitioners. Thus. U-920 as they were not made parties in the said case. and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. the RTC totally failed to give respondents their day in court. Thus. COURT OF APPEALS G.
it received necessary evidence to decide the ejectment case under the Rules on Summary Procedure. 202 was issued by then President Fidel V. Thereafter. an undue imposition on the time and the dockets of courts. Under Sec. finds no compelling reason to remand the case to the MTC. and it discussed the issue of forcible entry. therefore. Respondent Jancom International Development Projects Pty. A remand is a due process requirement. As previously noted. it received relevant evidence sufficient to decide the ejectment case on its merits. He then proceeded to decide the issues on the merits resulting in a judgment favoring plaintiffs' recovery of possession of the lots in litigation. Rizal Waste Disposal . 2006 Facts: Presidential Memorandum Order No. for the parties have already presented their evidence. the MTC observed due process. On appeal. The significance of this second requirement cannot be overemphasized.Defendant-petitioner (on appeal by way of certiorari to the Court of Appeals) alleges that the (Regional Trial Court) Judge gravely erred its discretion and lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. for it reveals the rationale for remanding the case.In the case at bar. in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.The Court. a Regional Trial Court. as the underlying purpose and objective for such remand is already fait accompli.involved. 8 Rule 40 (refer to the codal provision). JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL June 30. Where the parties have presented their respective evidence before the MTC. A Contract for the BOT Implementation of the Solid Waste Management Project for the San Mateo. because it affords the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the merits of the case. Consequently. Bids and Awards Committee to declare JANCOM as the sole complying bidder for the San Mateo Waste Disposal Site. remanding the case to the MTC serves no useful purpose. Issue: Was the RTC correct in resolving the ejectment suit on its merits? Ruling: We cannot sustain the Court of Appeals. Ramos creating an Executive Committee to oversee and develop waste-to-energy projects for the waste disposal sites in San Mateo. should remand a case in the event it reverses a decision of the MTC which ruled on a question of law. Rizal and Carmona. the above-said Executive Committee approved the recommendation of the Pre-qualification. a remand becomes a useless superfluity. Cavite. Limited of Australia (Jancom International) was one of the bidders for the San Mateo Waste Disposal Site. the decision of the RTC was based on the facts adduced by the parties before the MTC. it is clear that the MTC afforded due process to the parties. provided that there was no trial on the merits. Rule 38 GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA vs.
Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it. it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the trial court’s ministerial duty. this Court affirmed the November 13. substantially to every essential particular thereof. which decision of the lower court was affirmed by the CA. Rule 39 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Hence. with notice to the adverse party. The execution directed by the trial court being out of harmony with the judgment. Petitioner GMMSWMC thereupon adopted a Resolution not to pursue the contract with JANCOM.Indubitably.That a writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed. or is issued against the wrong party. the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin. The appellate court may. compellable by mandamus. when the interest of justice so requires. INC. submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof. on motion of the judgment obligee.51 In issuing the alias writ of execution.HAJ . The Pasig City RTC found in favor of respondents Jancom. when an error may be committed in the course of execution proceedings prejudicial to the rights of a party as where:1) the writ of execution varies the judgment. or the writ was issued without authority. vs. legal implications cannot save it from being found to be fatally defective. direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied. if the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved. The execution directed by the trial court being out of harmony with the judgment. or that it is defective in substance. LANTIN . Issue: Whether or not the order of execution was valid Ruling: As provided in Rule 39. unconstitutional and void and to enjoin petitioners from implementing the Resolution and making another award in lieu thereof. However. Once a judgment becomes final. there are instances. 1 (refer to the codal provision). the alias writ of execution varied the tenor of this Court’s judgment. the trial court in effect ordered the enforcement of the contract despite this Court’s unequivocal pronouncement that albeit valid and perfected. 2001 CA Decision and declared the contract valid and perfected. respondents filed a petition for certiorari8 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City to declare the GMMSWMC Resolution and the acts of the MMDA calling for bids for and authorizing the forging of a new contract for the Metro Manila waste management as illegal.the contract shall become effective only upon approval by the President. Sec. albeitineffective and unimplementable pending approval by the President. On appeal. 2) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued. it has no validity.Site4 (the contract) was entered into by the Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM. went against essential portions and exceeded the terms thereof. on motion in the same case.Owing to the clamor of the residents of Rizal. the Estrada administration ordered the closure of the San Mateo landfill.
Rodriguez. both of which are stated in detail in the decisions and various orders of the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioners filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration. relayed to GLOBE for transmission to their foreign destinations. Or as in some cases elevated to the Supreme Court. Georgia. and exemplary damages before the CFI of Rizal against RCPI and GLOBE.Thereafter. and the other to a Diane Merger in Athens. after all. No. mandamus.both cablegrams went undelivered. Considering the nature of the wrongful acts found by the trial court and the amount of damages adjudicated as recoverable. Sudan Socialist Union. What are they? Ruling: Yes. we are constrained to sustain the respondent courts insofar as the award for actual or compensatory damages are concerned but to postpone the execution of the awards for moral and exemplary damages until such time as the merits of the cases now on regular appeal before the Court of Appeals are finally determined. 1985 Facts: Rufus B.Thereafter. Issue: May damages be executed pending appeal? If so. prompting them to file an "Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution. United States. their motion for reconsideration was denied by the said court. Unlike actual damages for which the petitioners may clearly be held liable if they breach a specific contract and the amounts of which are fixed and certain.Hence. while liable for actual damages may not be liable for moral and exemplary damages. January 31. The execution of any award for moral and exemplary damages is dependent on the outcome of the main case. the Court of Appeals issued a restraining order enjoining the lower court from further proceeding with the civil case and from enforcing the writ of execution until further orders. as President of the World Association of Law Students (WALS).R.G. a petition for appeal by certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court. Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court alleging that the appeal is clearly dilatory and that the lapse of time would make the ultimate judgment illusory and ineffective. This urgent motion was likewise denied so RCPI and GLOBE filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. The cablegrams were. moral damages. even before the issuance of this order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.A motion for reconsideration of the above order. The existence of the factual bases of these types of damages and their causal relation to the petitioners' act will have to be determined in the light of the assignments of errors on appeal. and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. It is possible that the petitioners. the awards may be reduced. Rodriguez filed a "Motion for Execution Before Expiration of Time to Appeal" relying on Rule 39. one addressed to a Mohammed Elsir Taha in Khartoum. liabilities with respect to moral and exemplary damages as wen as the exact amounts remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution by the Intermediate Appellate Court and eventually the Supreme Court. the respondent Sheriffinsisted on levying on the funds and assets of petitioners RCPI and GLOBE. sent two cablegrams overseas through RCPI.The CFI rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. however.However. in turn. An opposition to the motion was filed by RCPI and by GLOBE.however. L-59311. Rodriguez filed a complaint for compensatory damages. .
however. The judgment of the trial court became final and executory and a writ of execution was thereafter issued. on 31 July 1979. the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed with this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Ramolete in ordering garnishment of the third-party liability insurance contract issued by petitioner Perla in favor of the judgment debtor. Private respondents Primitiva Palmes and Honorato Borbon. owned and registered in the name of Nelia Enriquez. Sr. No. P3.On 6 August 1979. Petitioner then appeared before the trial court and moved for reconsideration of the said Order. The writ of execution was.R. returned unsatisfied. nominal and exemplary damages. Nelia Enriquez.00 as compensatory damages for the death of Calixto Palmes. P5.000. ordering common carrier Nelia Enriquez to pay her P10.00 as moral damages. who is the original creditor of the garnishee is. for reasons which do not appear on the record.000. and driven by Cosme Casas. Garnishment has been defined as a species of attachment for reaching any property or credits pertaining or payable to a judgment debtor.000. vs. substituted by the judgment creditor who thereby becomes . Issue: Is the garnishment proper? Ruling: We find no grave abuse of discretion or act in excess of or without jurisdiction on the part of respondent Judge Ramolete in ordering the garnishment of the judgment debtor's third-party liability insurance. 1991 Facts: The Cimarron PUJ. private respondent Palmes filed a motion for garnishment praying that an order of garnishment be issued against the insurance policy issued by petitioner in favor of the judgment debtor. moral.00 as attorney's fees. collided with a private jeep owned by the late Calixto Palmes (husband of private respondent Primitiva Palmes) who was then driving the private jeep.00 as exemplary damages.Rule 39 PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS. Calixto Palmes died and physical injuries was caused on the part of Adeudatus Borbon. was nonetheless entertained.00 as actual damages.000. The Court of First Instance rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent Primitiva Palmes. claiming actual. and P1. November 13. P12. More than two (2) years later.As a result. Petition should have been dismissed forthwith for having been filed way out of time but. Thus. Branch 3. respondent Judge issued an Order directing the Provincial Sheriff or his deputy to garnish the third-party liability insurance policy.000. INC. (father of minor Adeudatus Borbon) filed a complaint against Cosme Casas and Nelia Enriquez (assisted by her husband Leonardo Enriquez) before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu. RAMOLETE G. L-60887. it is a forced novation by the substitution of creditors: the judgment debtor.In legal contemplation. through service of the writ of garnishment.
Thereafter. Respondents filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).000. not to pay the money or deliver the property to the latter. it is not necessary that summons be served upon him.The Rules of Court themselves do not require that the garnishee be served with summons or impleaded in the case in order to make him liable. Petitioner and respondents executed a Contract to Sell whereby the latter agreed to buy a 50.00 each. possession of the riceland was transferred to respondents under the condition that they shall account for and deliver the harvest from said riceland to petitioner. The MTC of Laguna rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner. 2002.R. failed to pay the installments and to account for and deliver the harvest from said riceland. until September 2001.creditor of the garnishee.In order that the trial court may validly acquire jurisdiction to bind the person of the garnishee. Undaunted. petitioner was deemed to have waived her right to file comment to the petition in CA Resolution dated August 28. Respondent contends that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in giving due course to the private respondents' petition for review notwithstanding the fact that said petition contains no verification to the effect that the allegations therein were read and understood by the private respondents and that . Municipality of Victoria. however. Laguna. June 19. Cruz. but rather to appear and answer the plaintiff's suit. All that is necessary for the trial court lawfully to bind the person of the garnishee or any person who has in his possession credits belonging to the judgment debtor is service upon him of the writ of garnishment.00 as down payment and the balance payable in nine installments of P500. Laguna. Sta. 2007 Facts: Petitioner owns a parcel of riceland situated in Barangay Daniw. CALENDACION G.000. respondents filed a Petition for Review with the CA.000-square meter portion of petitioner's riceland for P5Million. Rule 42 LARANO vs.Pending full payment of the purchase price. Dissatisfied. Garnishment has also been described as a warning to a person having in his possession property or credits of the judgment debtor. Laguna. No. she filed a Complaint against respondents for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). petitioner filed the present petition with the Supreme Court. 158231. with P500. The garnishee need not be impleaded as a party to the case.The CA rendered a Decision setting aside the Decision of the RTC and dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer. Respondents. The RTC affirmed the decision of MTC. petitioner sent respondents a demand letter to vacate the riceland but as her demand went unheeded. Branch 26.For failure to file her comment despite receipt of CA Resolution which required her to file a comment. Victoria. with slight modification.
A. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation.R. as she is deemed to have waived any objection to the formal flaws of the petition. 166408.] Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading. as required by the Rules. October 6. However. Petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City is primarily responsible for the imposition and collection of taxes within the territorial jurisdiction of Quezon City. Rule 44 Haj Pernes QUEZON CITY vs. petitioner did not raise the issue of lack of verification before the CA. No. the defect being neither jurisdictional nor always fatal. No. 7966.” the . otherwise known as the Revised Charter of Quezon City.A. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal. She did not file a comment to the petition and it is too late in the day to assail such defect. the non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. ABS-CBN was granted the franchise to install and operate radio and television broadcasting stations in the Philippines under R. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified. Besides. Points of law.) No. 9766 that it “shall pay a franchise tax x x x in lieu of all taxes.A.they are true and correct of their own or personal knowledge or based on authentic records. as required by the rules. 537. this Court has held in a number of instances that such a deficiency can be excused or dispensed with in meritorious cases. theories. the CA should have dismissed outright the petition for review. No. if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served. 2008) Facts: Petitioner City Government of Quezon City is a local government unit duly organized and existing by virtue of Republic Act (R. ABS-CBN had been paying local franchise tax imposed by Quezon City. ABS-CBN G. issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. hence. Issue: Ruling: As to the contention of petitioner that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the petition for review because it was not verified. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. in view of the provision in R.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts. issues of pure law not being within its jurisdiction. the Court opts to relax procedural rules and rule upon on the merits of the case . appeal was made to the CA. Thus. Consequently.corporation developed the opinion that it is not liable to pay the local franchise tax imposed by Quezon City. to the exclusion of all other courts. ABS-CBN filed a written claim for refund for local franchise tax paid to Quezon City for 1996 and for the first quarter of 1997. cognizable by the Supreme Court. Section 2. these are purely legal questions. However. to serve the demands of substantial justice and equity. According to the appellate court. The CA dismissed the petition of Quezon City and its Treasurer. ABS-CBN filed a complaint before the RTC in Quezon City seeking the declaration of nullity of the imposition of local franchise tax by the City Government of Quezon City for being unconstitutional. Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal taken to the CA under Rule 41 raising only questions of law is erroneous and shall be dismissed. the issues raised were purely legal questions cognizable only by the Supreme Court. The City of Quezon and its Treasurer filed a motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the RTC. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners-appellants raised factual and legal issues before the Honorable Court of Appeals Ruling: Obviously. For failure to obtain any response from the Quezon City Treasurer. the dismissal by the CA of petitioners’ appeal was in order. The RTC rendered judgment declaring as invalid the imposition on and collection from ABS-CBN of local franchise tax and ordered the refund of all payments made.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?