Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision Design Resources International Inc.
finding Petitioner Corazon Macapagal guilty of the and Kenneth Sy
crime of Estafa for misappropriating for her own vs.
benefit 800,000 Php, the value of unreturned and
unsold jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on
Lourdes L. Estringcol
January 13, 2009 then timely moved for G.R. No. 193966 February 19, 2014
reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated
May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received © Ash Salvoza
on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a notice of
Appeal on August 3, 2009 but the same was denied FACTS:
on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of time.
Thus, this petition for review on certiorari under Design Sources International, Inc. ("Petitioner
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Corporation") is a distributor of Pergo flooring.
Sometime in 1998, the Private Respondent bought
ISSUES:
the said brand of flooring of the "Cherry Blocked"
(1) WON the RTC of Manila gravely erred in type from the Petitioner Corporation. The flooring
denying the Notice of Appeal filed by was installed in her house.
petitioner-appellant
On February 24, 2000, the Private Respondent
(2) WON the RTC erred in denying the motion
discovered that the Pergo flooring installed had
for reconsideration filed by petitioner-
unsightly bulges at the joints and seams. The Private
appellant
Respondent informed the Petitioners of these
HELD: defects and the former insisted on the repair or
replacement of the flooring at the expense of the
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. latter.
(1) NO. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of After several inspections of the alleged defective
assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of flooring, meetings between the parties and
appeal. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal exchanges of correspondence, the Petitioner
Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and Corporation was given until May 31, 2000 to replace
when appeal is taken. The disallowance of the notice the installed flooring. Nevertheless, on the deadline,
of appeal disallows the appeal itself. A petition for the Petitioner Corporation did not comply with the
review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of a lower demand of the Private Respondent. A complaint for
court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme damages, docketed as Civil Case No.00-850, was thus
Court. However the questioned order denying the filed by the Private Respondent before the RTC on
notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from July 13, 2000.
which an appeal may be taken. The petitioner should
have availed of a special civil action under Rule 65. On February 8, 2006, Kenneth Sy, one of the
Thus, in availing the wrong mode of appeal under Petitioners' witnesses, testified in open
Rule 45 instead of Rule 65, the petition merits an court.Immediately after his testimony, the following
outward dismissal. occurred as evidenced by the transcript of
stenographic notes (“TSN”):
Even if the petition was treated as one for Certiorari
under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of COURT : (To Atty. Posadas) Who will be your next
the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court witness?
has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and CA to
issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner has no ATTY. POSADAS : Your honor, my next witness will
absolute freedom of choice of court to which the be Stephen Sy, also of Design Source.
application is directed. Direct Resort to the Supreme
ATTY FORTUN : Your honor, may I know if Mr.
Court is allowed only if there are special, important
Stephen Syaround [sic] the courtroom?
and compelling reasons clearly and specifically
spelled out in the petition, which are not present in ATTY. POSADAS : (Pointing to the said witness) He is
this case. here.
ATTY. FORTUN : So the witness is actually inside the Petitioners sought recourse before the CA by way of
Courtroom. a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court raising the issue whether or not the RTC has
ATTY. POSADAS : But, your honor, please, I was committed a grave abuse of discretion when it
asking about it, nahiyalangakokay Atty. Fortun. refused to allow Stephen Sy to testify.
ATTY. FORTUN : But I was [sic] asked of the exclusion At the outset, the CA found no sufficient basis that
of the witness. herein respondent previously asked for the exclusion
of other witnesses. It was the duty of respondent’s
COURT : (To Atty. Posadas) You shall have to tell the counsel to ask for the exclusion of other witnesses,
Court of your ready witness. without which, there was nothing to prevent
Stephen from hearing the testimony of petitioners’
ATTY. FORTUN : He already heard the whole
other witnesses. Nevertheless, following the
testimony of his colleague.
doctrine laid down in People v. Sandal (Sandal), the
ATTY. POSADAS : I'm sorry, your honor. appellate court ruled that the RTC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed
COURT : All right. When were you present him, Orders considering that petitioners failed to show
today or next time. that Stephen’s testimony would bolster their
position. Moreover, from the Manifestation of
ATTY. POSADAS : Next time, your honor. petitioners’ counsel, it appears that petitioners had
another witness who could give a testimony similar
COURT : All right. Next time, Atty. Posadas, if you to Stephen’s.
have other witnesses present in Court inform us.
Petitioners elevated the case to the SC assailing the
ATTY. FORTUN : No, your honor, in fact I will object Decision of the CA. In the meantime, trial proceeded
to the presentation of Mr. Stephen Sy, because his in the lower court. On 11 February 2014, they filed a
[sic] here all the time when the witness was cross- Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
examined. Mandatory Injunction or Temporary Restraining
Order either to allow the presentation of Stephen as
ATTY. POSADAS : Your honor, I will just preserve [sic]
a witness or to suspend the trial proceedings
my right to present another witness on the technical
pending the ruling in the instant Petition.
aspect of this case.
ISSUE:
COURT : Okay. All right. Order. After the completion
of the testimony of defendant's second witness in WON the RTC has committed a grave abuse of
the person of Mr. Kenneth Sy, [A]tty. Benjamin discretion for not allowing Stephen Sy to testify.
Posadas, counsel for the defendants, moved for
continuance considering that he is not feeling well SC RULING:
and that he needs time to secure another witness to
testify on the technical aspect, because of the Yes. Section 15, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
objection on the part of plaintiff's counsel Atty. Court provides:
Philip SigfridFortun on his plan of presenting of Mr.
Stephen Sy as their next witness due to his failure to SEC. 15.Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On
inform the Court and the said counsel of the any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the
presence of the said intended witness while Mr. court any witness not at the time under
Kenneth Sy was testifying. There being no objection examination, so that he may not hear the testimony
thereto on the part of Atty. Fortun, reset the of other witnesses. The judge may also cause
continuation of the presentation of defendant's witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
evidence to April 5, 2006 at 8:30 o'clock in the from conversing with one another until all shall have
morning. been examined.
On 22 March 2006, petitioners moved for a There is nothing in the records of this case that
reconsideration of the Order, but their motion was would show that there was an order of exclusion
denied by the RTC on 1 June 2006 on the ground from the RTC, or that there was any motion from
that “the Court deems it no longer necessary to respondent’s counsel to exclude other witnesses
allow Stephen Syfrom testifying when a different from the courtroom prior to or even during the
witness could testify on matters similar to the presentation of the testimony of Kenneth. We are
intended testimony of the former.” The Order also one with the CA in finding that under such
stated that “to allow Stephen Sy from testifying *sic+ circumstances, there was nothing to prevent
would work to the disadvantage of the plaintiff as he Stephen from hearing the testimony of Kenneth.
already heard the testimony of witness Kenneth Sy.” Therefore, the RTC should have allowed Stephen to
testify for petitioners.
Petitioners filed a Second Motion for
Reconsideration (with Leave of Court) dated 19 June Therefore, this Court finds that the RTC committed
2006, which was likewise denied by the RTC in the grave abuse of discretion in not allowing Stephen to
assailed Order dated 26 February 2007. testify notwithstanding the absence of any order for
exclusion of other witnesses during the presentation HELD:
of Kenneth's testimony.
The Petition is without merit.
In view thereof, the RTC is hereby ordered to allow
the presentation of Stephen Sy as witness for In the case at bar, although Petitioner’s contract
petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners' Motion for ended on October 25, 2000 and disembark only on
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory November 14, 2000 did not render automatic
Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order is now renewal of contract. It was not done because the
rendered moot. said vessel was still at sea, thus It was deemed
impossible but only it was impossible the said
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitioner would have been repatriated by virtue of
Petition is hereby the contract’s expiration because a seafarer partakes
the nature of a co-terminus employee.
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR SHANG KO
VINGSON YU SHIRLY VINGSON@ SHIRLY
Antonio E. Unica vs. Anscor Swire Ship VINGSON DEMAISIP, Petitioner,
Management Corporation, vs.
G.R. No. 184318 February 12, 2014 JOVY CABCABAN, Respondent.
UDK No. 14817 January 13, 2014
© Carl Deita
© Monz Gestoso
FACTS:
Jaime Palado (PALADO, hereafter) was the registered While the Petition does not squarely address the
owner of a real property with a building containing true issue involved, it is nonetheless evident that the
commercial spaces for lease located at Barangay CA gravely erred in holding NETWORK ABNK
Piapi, Davao City and covered by TCT No. 231531. solidarily Liable with PALADO for the payment of
Respondent Danilo G. Baric (BARIC, hereafter) was a Nominal Damages.
lessee therein, operating a barber shop on one of
NETWORK BANK did not violate any of BARIC’s
the commercial spaces. The lease was governed by a
rights; it was merely a purchaser or transferee of the
written agreement, or “Kasabutan”.
property. Surely, it is not prohibited from acquiring
In December 2000, BARIC demanded the return of the property even while the forcible entry case was
the leased commercial space. BARIC proceeded to pending, because as the registered owner of the
the Barangay for Conciliation and eventually got a subject property, PALADO may transfer his title at
Certificate to Bar Action. any time and the lease merely follows the property
as lien or encumbrance. Any invasion or violation of
In February 2001, BARIC filed a case for Forcible BARIC’s rights as lessee was committed solely by
Entry against PALADO with paryer for Injunctive PALADO and NETWORK BANK may not be implicated
Relief and One Network Rural Bank, Inc., (NETWORK or found guilty unless it took part in the commission
BANK, hereafter) before the MTCC of Davao City. of illegal acts, which does not appear to be so from
BARIC alleged that despite the agreement and the evidence on record. On the contrary, it appears
renovation of the property with the approval of that BARIC was ousted through PALADO’s acts even
PALADO, the latter still fenced and enclosed the before NETWORK BANK acquired the property or
premises, thereby denying BARIC access of the came into the picture. THUS IT WAS ERROR TO HOLD
property subject of lease. Network Bank purchased THE BANK LIABLE FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES.
the subject property on April 25, 2001 that’s why he
was impleaded as one of the respondents. The Resolution of Court of Appeals was MODIFIED.
latter bank alleged good faith when it purchased the NETWORK BANK is ABSOLVED from Liability.
property subject matter of this case, and therefore
according to the same bank, they should not be held
liable.
HERMINIA ACBANG, Petitioner, The petitioner appealed to the RTC.
vs.
In the meantime, the Spouses Lopez moved for the
HON. JIMMY H.F. LUCZON, JR., PRESIDING
execution of the decision pending appeal in the
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH RTC,3 alleging that the defendants had not filed a
01, SECOND JUDICIAL REGION, supersedeas bond to stay the execution. The
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, and Acbangs opposed the motion for execution pending
SPOUSES MAXIMO LOPEZ and HEIDI L. appeal,4 insisting that the failure of the Spouses
LOPEZ, Respondents. Lopez to move for the execution in the MTC
constituted a waiver of their right to the immediate
execution; and that, therefore, there was nothing to
© Kevin Buyco stay, rendering the filing of the supersedeas bond
unnecessary.
To stay the immediate execution of the judgment in
an ejectment case, the defendant must perfect an In his assailed order dated March 31, 2004, Judge
appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and periodically Luczon granted the motion for immediate execution,
deposit the rentals becoming due during the viz:
pendency of the appeal. Otherwise, the writ of
execution will issue upon motion of the plaintiff. The Motion for Execution is hereby granted, there
being no Motion to Fix Supersedeas bond filed by
The Case [the Acbangs] as of the date of the filing of the
Motion.
By petition for prohibition, the petitioner, a
defendant-appellant in Civil Case No. 6302 of the The opposition of [the spouses Lopez] on the appeal
Regional Trial Court RTC), Branch 1, in Tuguegarao taken by [the Acbangs] is hereby denied because
City, Cagayan, assails the order issued on March 31, under the rules the loosing [sic] party may appeal
2004 by respondent Judge Jimmy H.F. Luczon, Jr. the case even if they did not post their supercedeas
Judge Luczon) granting the motion for execution [sic] bond. [The spouses Lopez] then are given 15
against her and her co-defendants on the ground days from today within which to file their
that she had not posted any supersedeas bond to memorandum and [the Acbangs] are also given
stay the execution.1 similar period to file their reply on the memorandum
of [the spouses Lopez]. Afterwhich (sic) the case
Antecedents shall be submitted for decision with or without the
memorandum from the parties.
Respondent Spouses Maximo and Heidi Lopez
(Spouses Lopez) commenced an ejectment suit SO ORDERED.5
against the petitioner, her son Benjamin Acbang, Jr.
and his wife Jean (Acbangs) in the Municipal Trial The petitioner moved for reconsideration,6 stressing
Court (MTC) of Alcala, Cagayan (Civil Case No. 64). that the filing of the supersedeas bond was for the
The defendants did not file their answer. Thus, the purpose of staying the execution; and that she as a
MTC rendered its decision on January 12, 2004 in defendant would not be placed in a position to stay
favor of the Spouses Lopez, disposing thusly: the execution by filing a supersedeas bond unless
she was first notified of the filing of the motion for
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is immediate execution.
hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and as
against defendants as follows: The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration on April 26, 2004,7 viz:
a) The plaintiffs are the true and lawful
owners of the land covered by Transfer The Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendant
Certificate of Title No. T-139163. Herminia Acbang is denied, for the reason that the
Court finds no cause or reason to recall the order
b) The defendants are directed to vacate granting appellees’ motion for execution. There was
immediately the land in suit which is no supersedeas bond filed by [the Acbangs], so the
covered and described in TCT No. T-139163, execution of the decision is proper.
copy of the title is marked as Annex "A" of
the complaint. As the office of the supersedeas bond is to stay the
execution of the decision, the same should be filed
c) The defendants are hereby ordered to before the Motion For Writ of Execution is filed.
pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs the
amount of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees. IT IS SO ORDERED.8
d) The defendants are ordered to pay the The petitioner then brought the petition for
costs.2 prohibition directly in this Court on July 2, 2004,
submitting that Judge Luczon thereby committed Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit
grave error in granting the motion for immediate with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of
execution of the Spouses Lopez without first fixing the use and occupation of the premises for the
the supersedeas bond as prayed for by the Acbangs. preceding month or period at the rate determined
by the judgment of the lower court on or before the
It appears that the RTC rendered its decision in Civil tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The
Case No. 6302 on July 30, 2004,9 finding that the supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the
petitioner had not received the summons, and that Municipal Trial Court, with the papers, to the clerk of
the sheriff’s return did not show the steps taken by the Regional Trial Court to which the action is
the server to insure the petitioner’s receipt of the appealed.
summons, like the tender of the summons to her;
that the non-service of the summons on her resulted All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be
in the MTC not acquiring jurisdiction over her; and deposited with said court or authorized government
that the MTC’s decision in Civil Case No. 64 dated depositary bank, and shall be held there until the
January 14, 2004 was void as far as she was final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by
concerned. Thus, the RTC disposed as follows: agreement of the interested parties, or in the
absence of reasonable grounds of opposition to a
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court motion to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall
declares that the decision rendered by the Municipal decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make
Trial Court of Alcala, Cagayan dated January 14, 2004 the payments above prescribed from time to time
is null and void, as far as defendant Herminia Acbang during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate
is concerned. court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof
of such failure, shall order the execution of the
The MTC of Alcala is Ordered to reopen the case and judgment appealed from with respect to the
served [sic] the summons to Herminia Acbang and restoration of possession, but such execution shall
conduct the proceedings without any delay. not be a bar to the appeal taking its course until the
final disposition thereof on the merits.
It is so adjudged.10
After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court,
any money paid to the court by the defendant for
In the petition, the petitioner insists that the
purposes of the stay of execution shall be disposed
Spouses Lopez’s motion for execution pending
of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment
appeal should be filed before she posted a
of the Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it
supersedeas bond. She argues that even if the MTC’s
appears that the defendant has been deprived of the
decision was immediately executory, it did not mean
lawful possession of land or building pending the
that a motion for execution was dispensable; and
appeal by virtue of the execution of the judgment of
that the Spouses Lopez waived their right to the
the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such
immediate execution when they did not file a
deprivation of possession and restoration of
motion for execution in the MTC.
possession and restoration of possession may be
allowed the defendant in the judgment of the
On the other hand, the Spouses Lopez claim that the
Regional Trial Court disposing of the appeal.
issuance of a writ of execution was ministerial
because of the defendants’ failure to file a
Here, there was no indication of the date when the
supersedeas bond prior to or at the time of the filing
petitioner filed her notice of appeal. Her petition
of their notice of appeal in the MTC.
stated simply that she had filed a "timely notice of
appeal which was given due course without the
Ruling
respondents filing a motion for execution in the
Municipal Trial Court of Alcala, the court a quo."11
Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil On the other hand, the Spouses Lopez filed in the
Procedure reads: RTC their motion for execution pending appeal on
February 19, 2004.
Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how
to stay same. — If judgment is rendered against the The ruling in Chua v. Court of Appeals12 is
defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon instructive on the means of staying the immediate
motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the execution of a judgment in an ejectment case, to
defendant to stay execution files a sufficient wit:
supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial
Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay
As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the
in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, in
time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, order to prevent further damage to him arising from
during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with
the loss of possession of the property in question. To
the appellate court the amount of rent due from
stay the immediate execution of the said judgment
time to time under the contract, if any, as
while the appeal is pending the foregoing provision
determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial
requires that the following requisites must concur:
(1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a
supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits
the rentals which become due during the pendency
of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply
with any of these conditions is a ground for the
outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the
court in this respect being "ministerial and
imperative." Hence, if the defendant-appellant
perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas
bond, the immediate execution of the judgment
would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of
a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of
the judgment if the appeal is not perfected.
Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be
filed within the period for the perfection of the
appeal.
SO ORDERED.