ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 48306   November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 399

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 48306. November 7, 1941.]

    PEDRO L. GALANG, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE P. M. ENDENCIA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Respondents.

    Martin B. Laurea, for Petitioner.

    Jose A. Aligaen, for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ATTACHMENT AND ISSUANCE OF WRIT AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PERFECTED; JURISDICTION AND EXERCISE THEREOF; CERTIORARI. — The levy in attachment of the properties of the defendant upon the allegation that he is about to dispose of the same to defraud his creditors is one which is i tended for the protection and preservation of the rights of the plaintiff and which in no way involves any matter litigated by the defendants appeal. And as the respondent court had jurisdiction to issue the writ of attachment its errors, if any, committed in the appreciation of the probative value of the facts stated in the petition for the writ do not affect its jurisdiction but merely the exercise of such jurisdiction. What makes up jurisdiction is the authority to act in a particular case and not the correctness of the action taken thereon. Without such authority, as determined by law, the court cannot act, or if it does, its actuations are null and void; but where the authority exists, all orders and decisions of the court rendered in the exercise thereof and within its limits are valid even if they were erroneous. In such cases, appeal not certiorari, is the proper remedy.


    D E C I S I O N


    On December 26, 1940, respondent Judge Pastor M. Endencia rendered judgment in civil case No. 55934 of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of the plaintiff therein, the Philippine Engineering Corporation, and against defendant, Pedro L. Galang. Defendant interposed an appeal and five days after the perfection thereof the Philippine Engineering Corporation filed with the respondent court a petition for a writ of attachment, alleging among others, "that the defendant (petitioner here) has disposed of his property or is about to do so with intent to defraud his creditors." The petition was granted, and the sheriff of Manila levied on five boilers and six parcels of land belonging to the defendant and garnished his deposits with the Philippine Trust Company in the sum of P491.97. Defendant filed a motion for the discharge of the writ alleging that the disposal of his properties was in the regular and legitimate course of his business and was, therefore, not intended to be in fraud of his creditors. The court refused to discharge the writ unless the defendant file a counterbond in the amount of the judgment. The defendant, instead of filing the counterbond, applies now to this court for a writ of certiorari to declare respondent Judge to have acted without jurisdiction in the issuance of the writ of attachment.

    It is contended that the respondent court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of attachment after an appeal has been duly perfected from its final judgment. Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the approval of the appeal bond and the record on appeal, the appeal is deemed perfected and the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, and to approve compromises offered by the parties prior to the transmittal of the record on appeal to the appellate court.

    The levy in attachment of the properties of the defendant upon the allegation that he is about to dispose of the same to defraud his creditors is one which is intended for the protection and preservation of the rights of the plaintiff and which in no way involves any matter litigated by the defendant’s appeal. And as the respondent court had jurisdiction to issue the writ of attachment, its errors, if any, committed in the appreciation of the probative value of the facts stated in the petition for the writ do not affect its jurisdiction but merely the exercise of such jurisdiction. We need not belabor here the rule that what makes up jurisdiction is the authority to act in a particular case and not the correctness of the action taken thereon. Without such authority, as determined by law, the court cannot act, or if it does, its actuations are null and void; but where the authority exists, all orders and decisions of the court rendered in the exercise thereof and within its limits are valid even if they were erroneous. In such cases, appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy.

    Petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

    Abad Santos, Diaz, Horrilleno and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 48306   November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 399


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED