Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > February 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1828 February 26, 1948 - JOSE SILVESTRE v. CONRADO SANCHEZ

080 Phil 368:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1828. February 26, 1948.]

JOSE SILVESTRE, SERVILLANO DE LA CRUZ, JR., ELEODORO M. BENITEZ, JACINTA MEJIA DE REYES, and LIBERATO LITTAUA, Petitioners, v. CONRADO SANCHEZ, Judge of First Instance of Manila, LADISLAO PASICOLAN, Ex-officio Sheriff of City of Manila, D. B. AMBROSIO, TOMAS DEL RIO, and TEOPISTO S. MIRASOL, Respondents.

Alejo Mabanag, for Petitioners.

D. B. Melliza and Alcuaz & Eiguren for Respondents.

Agapito Burgos for intervenors.

SYLLABUS


CHATTEL MORTGAGE; EXTRAJUDICIAL SALE; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO SUSPEND SALE; CASH DEPOSITS AND BONDS, REASONABLENESS OF; CASE AT BAR. — Under the facts stated in the opinion, it was held that the amounts of the cash deposits and of the bonds fixed by the respondent judge for the issuance, at the instance of the petitioners, of a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the extrajudicial sale of the vessel mortgaged to respondents T. del R. and T. S. M., pending determination of the ownership of said vessel, were reasonable and that, therefore, the respondent judge did not thereby abuse his discretion or exceed his jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, C.J. :


D. B. Ambrosio, one of the respondents herein, as registered owner of a vessel designated "International Trader" executed three mortgages thereon, the first in favor of Tomas del Rio in the amount of approximately P31,000, the second in favor of Teopisto S. Mirasol, in the amount of approximately P37,000, and the third in favor of Rafael Fernandez in the amount of P20,000 or more. Upon failure of D. B. Ambrosio to meet his obligations with the aforementioned mortgages, the latter moved for the extrajudicial sale of the vessel. However, before the holding of the sale, Jose Silvestre, Servillano de la Cruz, Jr., Eleodoro M. Benitez, Jacinta Mejia de Reyes, and Liberato Littaua, petitioners herein, in a letter dated November 10, 1947, addressed to the sheriff of the City of Manila, also a respondent in this petition, sought to stop the extra-judicial sale on the ground that they were in fact the true owners of said vessel, having the same in their absolute control and possession. On November 15, 1947, the herein petitioners filed two complaints with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging their ownership of the vessel and their non-participation in the execution of the mortgages, and prayed for the annulment of the mortgages in favor of Teopisto S. Mirasol and Tomas del Rio, for the cancellation of the registry of ownership over said vessel in the name of D. B. Ambrosio, and for the issuance of a permanent writ of injunction against the sheriff of the City of Manila, restraining him from consummating the extra-judicial sale of said vessel set for December 2, 1947. This writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs was set for hearing. At this juncture, the Bureau of Labor, through its legal counsel, moved to intervene in the case in behalf of the crew of said vessel, claiming for salaries and wages long overdue. Intervention was granted by the trial court. Upon hearing, the trial court held as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon these considerations, the court declares that the court will be prepared to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the sale on foreclosure of the boat in question for a period of 45 days and upon such terms as it may deem just, on compliance of the following conditions, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Plaintiffs shall deposit with the clerk of this court before the close of office hours on December 1, 1947, the sum of P7,500, as part payment of the claim of the officers and crew and laborers for unpaid salaries and wages;

"2. In civil case No. 4062, plaintiffs, shall, before the close of office hours on December 1, 1947, file in court a bond satisfactory to the court in the total sum of P55,000 to cover (a) the claim of the Bureau of Customs, (b) the balance of the claim of the officers and crew and laborers of the boat, and (c) the claim of Tomas del Rio; and

"3. In civil case No. 4061, plaintiffs shall likewise file on or before the close of office hours on December 1, 1947, a bond in the sum of P25,000.

"In the event a writ of injunction issue herein, before the expiration of 45 days during which the sale shall be suspended, any of the parties may make representations to the court for the purpose of dissolving, modifying or continuing the writ of injunction.

"It is hereby further ordered that in the event of failure on the part of plaintiffs to comply with any of the conditions required for the issuance of a writ of injunction, the sale at public auction scheduled by the Sheriff of Manila to take place at 10 a.m. on December 2, 1947, shall proceed.

"In the event of such foreclosure sale, the sheriff shall forthwith deliver to the Bureau of Labor the sum of P10,000 for purposes of distribution to the officers and crew and laborers of the vessel in question by way of part payment of unpaid salaries and wages, and the balance shall be deposited with the clerk of this court, subject to further orders from this court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners come before this Court for the reversal of the order of the trial court above quoted on the ground of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction, alleging that the amounts of the cash deposit and the bonds required by said court are "excessive, unconscionable, prohibitive" and unwarranted by the provisions of the Rules of Court, and praying further for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the trial court from further proceeding in the case and the sheriff of Manila from consummating the extra-judicial sale, and for the reduction of the bonds to a nominal amount in the two cases of annulment.

Upon the facts of this case, the writ of certiorari prayed for does not lie. There has been no grave abuse of discretion nor excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. On the contrary, its order of November 27, 1947, above quoted, is certainly reasonable. The question of ownership of the vessel is pending in the lower court and need not be settled here at all. Though it may be said in passing that no proof of ownership is shown by petitioners to be so conclusive as to warrant the risk of granting preliminary injunction at a nominal bond. This, with the circumstance that apparently one of the petitioners, Eleodoro M. Benitez, was present when one of the mortgages was executed, he having acted as the notary public before whom the deed was ratified, as shown by Exhibit 2, is more than sufficient justification for the trial court to take the necessary precautions for the protection of all the creditors. It must be noted that two of the obligations to which the vessel is subject are superior and preferred, namely, approximately P7,000 due the Bureau of Customs for duty compensation tax and approximately P30,000 for salaries and wages due the crew, which latter obligation is obviously urgent. And, as tabulated in the order appealed from, and substantiated by evidence, the lower court found that the vessel must answer for all of the following obligations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Claim of the Bureau of Customs for duty,

compensation tax, etc. (approximately) P7,000.00

Officers and crew and laborers of the boat

for unpaid salaries and wages from Jan. 9,

1947, to Dec. 2, 1947(approximately) 30,000.00

Claim of Tomas del Rio in civil case No.

4062 by way of first mortgage up to Dec.

2, 1947 (approximately) 31,000.00

Claim of Teopisto S. Mirasol in civil case

No. 4061 on a second mortgage to Dec.

2, 1947 (approximately) 37,000.00

Claim by way of third mortgage in favor of

one Rafael Fernandez, who is not a party

hereto, up to Dec. 2, 1927 (more than) 20,000.00

—————

125,000.00"

In view of these urgent and preferred obligations, and of the circumstance that the insurance on said vessel has already lapsed, and considering that the steady increase of the financial obligation to which the vessel is subject rises in inverse proportion to the steady depreciation of the vessel in its present state of neglect, and which chattel remains as the sole guarantee for the fulfillment of the multiple obligations involved in the litigation, this Court finds that the conditions required by the trial court for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the extra-judicial sale of the vessel to satisfy the aforementioned obligations, are, far from being abusive, or excessive, but proper and just for the protection of the interests of all the parties concerned.

The petition is dismissed with costs against petitioners.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla and Tuason, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PERFECTO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioners complain that the cash deposit and the bond required by respondent judge in his order of November 27, 1947, are excessive, unconscionable, prohibited and unwarranted by the provisions of the Rules of Court.

We found that, under the facts, the amounts set in the order are disproportionately large and unjustified. Our conclusion is that the order has been issued in grave abuse of discretion and that petitioners are entitled to relief.

We vote to grant the prayers of the petition.




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






February-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1782 February 2, 1948 - FIDEL B. FORTUNATO v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-725 February 3, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO APARATO

    080 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-869 February 9, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PASTOR TAN MATEO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1357 February 9, 1948 - MARIANO R. LACSON v. C. N. HODGES, ET AL.

    080 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-1788 February 9, 1948 - MATIAS NAREDO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-1808 February 14, 1948 - FAUSTINO FULGENCIO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. L-1313 February 16, 1948 - ROSALINA CUNANAN v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    080 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-1424 February 17, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO CARPIZO

    080 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-1651 February 17, 1948 - AGAPITO B. ANDAL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    080 Phil 236

  • R-Civil No. 1740 February 18, 1948 - FELISA R. DE VICTORIO v. JACOB VOLZ

    080 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-1273 February 19, 1948 - JOSE F. SINGSON v. VICENTE Q. QUINTILLAN, ET AL.

    080 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-1636 February 24, 1948 - VICENTE MADRIGAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-1692 February 24, 1948 - AMADO SOROÑGON, ET AL. v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL

    080 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-1988 February 24, 1948 - JESUS MIQUIABAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    080 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 48411 February 24, 1948 - ELKS CLUB v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA

    080 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-538 February 25, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO OLAVIDES ET AL.

    080 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1806 February 25, 1948 - ALFONSO PAGKALINAWAN, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 281

  • G.R. Nos. L-683 & L-684 February 26, 1940

    EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIO IMSON, ET AL.

    080 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-1612 February 26, 1948 - JORGE B. VARGAS v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    080 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-1828 February 26, 1948 - JOSE SILVESTRE v. CONRADO SANCHEZ

    080 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1247 February 27, 1948 - HOSPICIA BLAY, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    080 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-1317 February 27, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM LOGO

    080 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-1566 February 27, 1948 - CIPRIANO OLAVIANO v. PRIMITIVO ORIELL

    080 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-1631 February 27, 1948 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. ROMAN OZAETA

    080 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-1853 February 27, 1948 - GRACIANO SITCHON, ET AL. v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    080 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-1870 February 27, 1948 - ANTONIO C. OGNIR v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-1128 February 28, 1948 - GERARDO M. ALFONSO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-1719 February , 28, 1948 - CANUTO VALIENTE v. JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE TARLAC

    080 Phil 415