Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del
Castillo, Villarama, Jr. and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Bersamin, J., I join the dissenting opinion of J. Abad.
Abad, J., please see dissenting opinion.
Perez, J., took no part. Acted on matter as Court Administrator.
Sereno, J., is on leave.
Reyes, J., is on official leave.
Separate Opinions
ABAD, J., dissenting:
Footnotes
4.Id. at 12-14.
5.Id. at 15.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Id. at 20-24.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 17-19.
10.Id. at 37-38.
11.Id. at 45-48.
12.Id. at 39-40.
13.Supra note 1.
22.Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Reyes, 239 Phil. 304, 316 (1987).
23.Go v. Villanueva, Jr., G.R. No. 154623, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 126, 131-132;
Aquino, Sr. v. Valenciano, A.M. No. MTJ-93-746, December 27, 1994, 239
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
SCRA 428, 429; Prudential Bank v. Judge Gapultos, 260 Phil. 167, 179 (1990);
and Investors' Finance Corp. v. Ebarle, 246 Phil. 60, 71 (1988).
24.De Leon v. Hon. Salvador, et al., 146 Phil. 1051, 1057 (1970).
25.Go v. Villanueva, Jr., supra note 23; Union Bank of the Philippines v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 165382, August 17, 2006, 499 SCRA
253, 264; David v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 177, 187 (1999); Darwin, et al.
v. Tokonaga, et al., 274 Phil. 726, 736 (1991); and Paper Industries Corp. of
the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 235 Phil. 162, 167 (1987).
26.Balais v. Velasco , 322 Phil. 790, 806 (1996); and Vda. de Dimayuga v.
Raymundo and Nable, 76 Phil. 143, 146 (1946).
27.Bishop Mondejar v. Hon. Javellana, 356 Phil. 1004, 1017 (1998); and Balais v.
Velasco, supra note 26.
28.Supra note 23.
29.433 Phil. 701, 711 (2002), citing Parco, et al. v. CA, et al., 197 Phil. 240, 257
(1982).
30.A.M. Nos. RTJ-07-2047-48, July 3, 2007, 526 SCRA 280.
31.Id. at 289.
32.A.M. No. RTJ-09-2170, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 268.
33.Id. at 277.
34.Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
Section 1. . . .
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
35.Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra v. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 191938,
October 19, 2010; and People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982, August 5, 2009,
595 SCRA 438, 451.
36.Rollo , pp. 34-36; TRO issued in Spl. Civil Case No. 1873-09, entitled "Mindanao
State University, etc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, etc."
37.Supra note 9.
38.Fermin v. Esteves, G.R. No. 147977, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 424, 431; and
DSM Construction and Dev't. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 514 Phil. 782, 797
(2005).
39.Section 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. — If the
property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor
or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to
the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves
the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the
judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by
the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the
value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the
same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim
for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced
against the bond unless the action therefore is filed within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the
property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent
the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious
claim. See Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos.
182136-37, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 737, 749-750; and Solidum v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 161647, June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 261, 271.
40.Collado v. Heirs of Alejandro Triunfante, Sr., G.R. No. 162874, November 23,
2007, 538 SCRA 404, 413.
41.Supra note 35.
42.Ramas-Uypitching, Jr. v. Magalona, A.M. No. P-07-2379, November 17, 2010,
635 SCRA 1, 5; Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, A.M. No. P-02-1655, February 6,
2007, 514 SCRA 265, 277; Apostol v. Ipac, 502 Phil. 485, 490 (2005); and De
Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690, 696 (2005).
43.Nor is it a viable legal position to claim that a TRO is issued against an erring
sheriff, not against the issuing Judge. A TRO enjoining the enforceability of a
writ; any complaint against the act of the sheriff must be addressed to the
issuing court, not the executing sheriff.
44.Rollo , p. 89.
45.In Re: Partial Report on the Results of the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC,
Branch 1, Cebu City , A.M. No. MTJ-05-1572, January 30, 2008, 543 SCRA 105,
116.
ABAD, J., dissenting:
1.Entitled City of Iligan, Heirs of Jesus Ledesma, et al. v. Percing Gabriel, Mindanao
State University, et al.
2.Decision dated November 29, 1997.
3.Docketed as CA-G.R. CV 64832.
6.A copy of the OSG's Opposition dated February 8, 2009 was received by the RTC
on March 13, 2009 and was denied by the RTC in its Order dated March 31,
2009.
7.Docketed as SPL Civil Case 1873-09.
9.Judge Balindong was previously found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and for
violation of the lawyer's oath and Canons 1, 5, 6 and 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and was fined P30,000.00 and P10,000.00
respectively, in A.M. RTJ-08-2103 entitled: "Edna S.V. Benito v. Rasad G.
Balindong."
10.In this case, MSU has a separate juridical personality from the National
Government and has the power to sue and to be sued as provided in Section
5 of R.A. 1387 in relation to Section 13, Act 1459.
11.National Electrification Administration v. Morales , G.R. No. 154200, July 24,
2007.