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
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2717   December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL. <br /><br />085 Phil 249

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2717. December 29, 1949.]

    IRINEO FACUNDO, Petitioner, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL., Respondents.

    [G.R. No. L-2718. December 29, 1949.]

    IRINEO FACUNDO, Petitioner, v. JOSE M. SANTOS ET AL., Respondents.

    [G.R. No. L-2767. December 29, 1949.]

    IRINEO FACUNDO, Petitioner, v. VALENTIN R. LIM ET AL., Respondents.

    Marcelino Lontok and Jose Facundo for Petitioner.

    Padilla, Carlos & Fernando for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. INJUNCTION; ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION’; CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES SUFFERED; TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE. — A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must be filed before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before entry of final judgment.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    On April 9, 1948, Irineo Facundo filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a special civil action for prohibition (civil case No. 487) against Lucio M. Tianco, as municipal judge of Rizal City, and Valentin R. Lim. On April 10, 1948, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, upon the filing by Facundo of a bond for P1,000, ordering municipal judge Tianco to desist from issuing an alias writ of execution in civil case No. 32 of his court. On April 24, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision dismissing the petition for prohibition and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. On July 29, 1948, Lim filed a motion praying that the injunction bond for P1,000 filed by Facundo be forfeited in favor of Lim for unpaid rentals due from Facundo under the decision of municipal judge Tianco in civil case No. 32. On September 30, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, through Judge Bienvenido A. Tan, issued an order (1) holding that Lim was able to prove, at the hearing held on September 16, 1948, damages amounting to more than P1,000 suffered by way of uncollected rentals as a result of the writ of preliminary injunction, (2) ordering the confiscation of the injunction bond, and (3) directing the bonding company to pay Lim the sum of P1,000. This order gave rise to the present petition in G. R. No. L-2717 in which the petitioner Irineo Facundo prays for its annulment.

    On April 24, 1946, Irineo Facundo instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for certiorari and prohibition (civil case No. 7674) against Jose M. Santos, ex-justice of the peace of Pasay, Ricardo C. Robles, as justice of the peace of Pasay, and Valentin R. Lim. The court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing by Facundo of a bond of P1,000. On June 21, 1946, the court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition. This decision was, upon appeal of Facundo, affirmed by the Supreme Court on December 17, 1946. Lim filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a motion dated July 29, 1948, praying for the forfeiture of the injunction bond in favor of Lim, to cover back rentals due under the decision of the justice of the peace court in civil case No. 32, which Lim failed to collect because of the writ of preliminary injunction. On September 30, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, through Judge Bienvenido A. Tan, issued an order (1) holding that Lim was able to prove, at the hearing held on September 16, 1948, damages amounting to more than P1,000, (2) ordering the confiscation of the injunction bond, and (3) directing the bonding company to pay Lim the sum of P1,000. This order gave rise to the present petition in G. R. No. L-2718 in which Facundo prays for its annulment.

    On August 4, 1947, Irineo Facundo instituted in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari (C.A. -G. R. No. 1566-R) against Judge Eulalio Garcia of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Valentin R. Lim, and the provincial sheriff of Rizal. On August 5, 1947, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction, upon the filing by Facundo of a bond for P1,000, restraining the provincial sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution issued by the justice of the peace court of Pasay in civil case No. 32. On November 26, 1947, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. Lim filed a motion dated July 29, 1948, praying that the injunction bond be forfeited in favor of Lim to cover unpaid rentals due under the decision in civil case No. 32 which Lim was not able to collect because of the writ of preliminary injunction. This motion was denied by the Court of Appeals on August 10, 1948, without prejudice to the right of Lim to claim for such damages as might have been caused by the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by Lim, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution on September 24, 1948, requiring Lim to proceed within ten days in accordance with section 20, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court. On January 21, 1949, the Court of Appeals issued an order holding that damages had been proved by Lim at the hearing held on November 3, 1948, and ordering Facundo to pay Lim P416.45, representing rentals from August 6, 1947, to December 11, 1947, at the rate of P100 monthly. This order and the order of September 24, 1948, gave rise to the present petition for certiorari in G. R. No. L-2767 in which Facundo prays for their annulment.

    The contention of the herein petitioner, Irineo Facundo, in all these three cases is that the claim for damages of herein respondent Valentin R. Lim had been presented out of time, because they were not filed before the final termination of the proceedings in which the writs of preliminary injunction were issued and no award for such damages was included in the final judgments.

    In G. R. No. L-783, Brodett v. De la Rosa, 1 and on January 23, 1947, we laid down the following pronouncement: "Acting upon the petition of Attorney Luciano de la Rosa, dated January 14, 1947, in G. R. No. L-783, Brodett v. De la Rosa, praying this Court to order the return of the sum of P200 deposited by him on September 2, 1946, as per official receipt No. 109356, as a cash bond for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in petitioner’s petition herein; the opposition thereto of respondents’ counsel dated January 16, 1947; and the reply dated January 18, 1947, of said movant; it appearing that the decision rendered herein under date of December 18, 1946, became final on January 11, 1947, as appears from the entry of judgment made by the Clerk of this Court on the last mentioned date; considering that before said final judgment no application stating and claiming damages, which might have been suffered by respondents by reason of said writ of preliminary injunction, was filed; and considering that damages are only recoverable in such cases if the amount thereof is claimed, proven and awarded in the manner and form and following the procedure established in Rule 60, section 9, in relation with Rule 59, section 20, namely, through the filing before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before entry of final judgment, with due notice to the adverse party (and his surety or sureties, if any) of an application setting forth the facts showing the right to damages and the amount thereof, upon which application proper hearing should be had, and the amount awarded, if any, included in the final judgment (See also Somes v. Crossfield, 9 Phil., 13, and Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350): the Court resolves to grant, as it hereby grants, the aforesaid petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The rule, therefore, is that a claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must be filed before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before entry of final judgment. It appearing that respondent Lim sought to recover damages upon the injunction bonds only on July 29, 1948, when the decisions in the three proceedings in which the writs of preliminary injunctions were issued had become final, the herein respondent courts could no longer make any adjudication in favor of respondent Lim. The latter, however, argues that in his answers to the three petitions for certiorari and prohibition in which writs of preliminary injunction were issued, he included allegations regarding the accrual of damages. That these general allegations had not been intended to, and cannot, take the place of an application spoken of in section 20 of Rule 59, setting forth the facts showing respondent Lim’s right to damages and the amount thereof, is obviously inferable from the total absence in said answers of any prayer for award of damages upon the injunction bonds.

    Upon the other hand, it is undeniable that respondent Lim suffered damages by way of unpaid rentals, but these damages could have been properly avoided if the respondent courts required the herein petitioner to pay or deposit said rentals, because in forcible entry and detainer cases stay of execution refers only to possession and can be obtained only upon compliance with the conditions imposed in section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.

    Wherefore, the herein three petitions are granted and the orders of the respondent courts respectively involved therein are set aside, without costs. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 77 Phil., 752.

    G.R. No. L-2717   December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL. <br /><br />085 Phil 249


    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