Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45224 September 17, 1936 - MARIA D. CABUHAT v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

063 Phil 460:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45224. September 17, 1936.]

MARIA D. CABUHAT, Petitioner, v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, Judge of First Instance of Manila, JOSE CASIMIRO, Sheriff of Manila, and the spouses CIRILO HIPOLITO and MARTINA TORRES, Respondents.

Lucio Javillonar for Petitioner.

The respondent Judge in his own behalf.

Honorio Cariñgal for the other respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; ESTOPPEL. — Without expressly deciding whether or not the court acted with abuse of discretion in requiring the petitioner to file an additional bond in order to suspend the execution of the judgment to which she had excepted, this court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy now sought by her on the ground that she is estopped therefrom, having consented and submitted to the conditions of the order of June 9, 1936, by voluntarily filing the additional bond of P400. It is not a good policy to permit a party to question an order which he has voluntarily complied with, when it has been issued by a court which had full jurisdiction over the case (11 C.J., pages 138, 139, sec. 103). If the petitioner wished the order, which she claimed to have been issued irregularly or with abuse of discretion, reviewed, she should have filed this petition immediately after excepting thereto and should have applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in order to maintain the status quo. But after having complied therewith, she cannot successfully question it in certiorari proceedings because it would be equivalent to repudiating her own acts.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


The herein petitioner instituted civil case No. 106255 and filed and complaint dated September 11, 1935, in the municipal court of the City of Manila, to recover from the defendants, the respondent spouses Cirilo Hipolito and Martina Torres, an indebtedness in the sum of P156 and to foreclose the mortgage constituted by them on a piano and a cash register to secure the obligation. In their answer, the respondent defendants charged the petitioner with usury, alleging that they had not received the entire original loan from her. After the trial, and having examined all the evidence presented by the parties, the municipal court, on October 5, 1935, rendered judgment dismissing the action, without costs. The judgment became final because the petitioner failed to appeal.

Later the petitioner brought civil case No. 106679 against said respondents in the said municipal court, the complaint filed by her being dated October 17, 1935. The action was the same and it had the same purpose. The relief sought was identical. The only difference between the two cases was that in the latter the petitioner asked for the issuance of a writ of attachment upon filing a bond of P400 which she was willing to do. In their answer, the respondent defendant set up the same defenses and furthermore alleged that the latter action brought by the petitioner was already res judicata. After the trial, the municipal court, on November 19, 1935, rendered judgment dismissing the action on the ground that it already constitutes res judicata. The petitioner appealed. Inasmuch as she had filed a bond, the writ of attachment was issued and the sheriff attached the piano and cash register and delivered them to the petitioner. On appeal and after due trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on March 31, 1936, rendered judgment holding that the case already constituted res judicata, and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint, with costs. Subsequently, it ordered the return of the piano and cash register to the respondents. The petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, upon the denial of which she gave notice of her intention to perfect her appeal, duly presenting her bill of exceptions. It does not appear whether the bill of exceptions has already been approved or not. Upon petition of the respondents, the court, in its order of June 9, 1936, provided for the execution of the judgment so rendered notwithstanding the petitioner’s notice of appeal, unless she filed a bond of P400 to secure compliance with the judgment, in case it should be affirmed. The petitioner asked for the reconsideration of the latter order and excepted to the resolution denying it. She however filed the bond required of her, which was subscribed by two sureties. The court disapproved it because it did not appear satisfactorily that the sureties were solvent. The petitioner was given a certain period to prove the solvency of the sureties and, as she failed to file the certificate of the municipal treasure on time, the court ordered the execution of the judgment and the delivery of the chattels to the respondents. The sheriff executed it and found only the piano which he delivered to the respondents. The cash register is still in the possession of the petitioner.

In her petition for certiorari, the petitioner now contends that the court’s order of June 9, 1936, requiring her to file an additional bond of P400 if she wished to have the execution of the judgment suspended, pending the appeal, is illegal and has been issued with abuse of discretion.

Without expressly deciding whether or not the court acted with abuse of discretion in requiring the petitioner to file an additional bond in order to suspend the execution of the judgment to which she had excepted, this court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy now sought by her on the ground that she is estopped therefrom, having consented and submitted to the conditions of the order of June 9, 1936, by voluntarily filing the additional bond of P400. It is not a good policy to permit a party to question an order which he has voluntarily complied with, when it has been issued by a court which had full jurisdiction over the case (11 C.J., pages 138, 139, sec. 103). If the petitioner wished the order, which she claimed to have been issued irregularly or with abuse of discretion, reviewed, she should have filed this petition immediately after excepting thereto and should have applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in order to maintain the status quo. But after having complied therewith, she cannot successfully question it in certiorari proceedings because it would be equivalent to repudiating he own acts.

For the foregoing reasons, the remedy applied for is denied, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42258 September 5, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    063 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 45174 September 5, 1936 - MAURICIO CRUZ & CO., INC. v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 44861 September 8, 1936 - EUGENIO TESTA v. C.A. VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 43206 September 9, 1936 - FELIX SEPAGAN v. PAULINO DACILLO

    063 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 43367 September 9, 1936 - MARIETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. TERESA GARCIA DE BARTOLOME

    063 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 45134 September 10, 1936 - GENANICHI ISHI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    063 Phil 428

  • Adm. Case No. 786 September 15, 1936 - TRANQUILINO MARAVILLA v. CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL

    063 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45141 September 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO VENUS

    063 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 45089 September 17, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. FLORES

    063 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 45116 September 17, 1936 - GO OCCO & CO. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 45125 September 17, 1936 - RICARDO CARREON v. M. BUYSON LAMPA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 45131 September 17, 1936 - RAMON SANTARROMANA, ET AL. v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 45224 September 17, 1936 - MARIA D. CABUHAT v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 45220 September 18, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TAPEL

    063 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 45250 September 21, 1936 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 45282 September 21, 1936 - BENITO MATEO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 45129 September 24, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO FOLLANTES, ET AL.

    063 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 45252 September 24, 1936 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 42884 September 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 41376 September 29, 1936 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ABALOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 43101 September 29, 1936 - CIRIACO CHUNACO v. DELFINA TRIA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 42832 September 30, 1936 - LOURDES CATALA v. NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

    063 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 43486 September 30, 1936 - MUNICIPALITY OF GASAN v. MIGUEL MARASIGAN, ET AL.

    063 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 43824 September 30, 1936 - LEOCADIA SALOMON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DANTES

    063 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 44523 September 30, 1936 - ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    063 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 44934 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON FRESCO

    063 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45178 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO S. OCBINA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINA BANDIAN

    063 Phil 530