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
 

   
June-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • C.A. No. 793 June 9, 1949 - MARCOS ROQUE, ET AL. v. LEONCIA SONGCO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1408 June 11, 1949 - MARIA BAUTISTA v. JOSE B. L. REYES, ET AL.

    084 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-1086 June 13, 1949 - BELLA BERNARDINO, ET AL.vs. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO DE MANILA

    084 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-1081 June 14, 1949 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ v. PEDRO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-670 June 16, 1949 - SEGUNDA SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. PABLO VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. L-1522 June 16, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARCIANO O. MERIALES

    084 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-1568 June 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ERAÑA ET AL.

    084 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-2261 June 16, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. EMPLOYEES ASS’N OF THE PAMPANGA BUS CO.

    084 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-2428 June 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE MARIQUlNA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-1855 June 22, 1949 - FELIPE C. ALVIAR, ET AL. v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. L-923 June 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DIZON

    084 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-1305 June 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE GALO

    084 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-1513 June 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AKAI, ET AL.

    084 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-2063 June 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO BARTIQUIN

    084 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-2137 June 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMILLANO GRIAR

    084 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-2949 June 24, 1949 - ROBERT L. WEADOCK, ET AL., v. MACARIO OFILADA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-565 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE BADILI

    084 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-1080 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE JAVIER ALMODOVAR

    084 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-1373 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRONIO VISAGAR

    084 Phil 84

  • G.R. Nos. L-1604, L-1712 & L-1713 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO FALTADO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 89

  • G.R. Nos. L-1820-21 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO SANTOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-2012 June 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOFRONIO GAJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-547 June 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DE CASTRO

    084 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-1006 June 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON ESCLETO

    084 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-1716 June 28, 1949 - MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.) , ET AL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

    084 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2427 June 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANATALIO SALIENTE, ET AL.

    084 Phil 136

  • C.A. No. 8037 June 28, 1949 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO P. MARTIN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-1794 June 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO VIERNES, ET AL.

    084 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-1797 June 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL MENDOZA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-2443 June 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. DEMETRIO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-2852 June 30, 1949 - VICTOR A. BOROVSKY v. COMM. OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-48494 June 30, 1949 - BANQUE GENERALE BELGE, ET AL. v. WALTER BULL & CO., INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 164

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2949   June 24, 1949 - ROBERT L. WEADOCK, ET AL., v. MACARIO OFILADA, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 68

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2949. June 24, 1949.]

    ROBERT L. WEADOCK and JAMES T. WALKER, Petitioners, v. MACARIO OFILADA, Sheriff for the City of Manila, and BATANGAS BASE R. SURPLUS COMPANY, Respondents.

    Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian & Quasha, for Petitioners.

    City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles for respondent Sheriff of Manila.

    V. E. Del Rosario for respondent Batangas Base R. Surplus Co.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ATTACHMENT; SUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVIT TO DISCHARGE ATTACHMENT. — The interest which M claims to have in the attached property does not meet the requirements of section 14 of Rule 59, and should be ignored. He does not allege that Insular Trades, Inc. used Batangas Base R Surplus Company’s funds as the latter’s agent or in the latter’s name. The allegations are more susceptible of the interpretation that Batangas Bass R Surplus Company is a mere creditor of Insular Trades, Inc. it is not inferable from these allegations that M’s interest, or the interest of the partnership which he claims to represent, constitutes title to, or a lien on, the attached property and entitles him or his principal to its possession.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This is an "Urgent Ex-Parte Petition to Require Sheriff of Manila to Re-attach Properties" filed in case No. L-2949, Robert L. Weadock and James T. Walker v. Macario Ofilada, sheriff for the City of Manila, and Batangas Base R. Surplus Company, entitled "Petition for a Writ of Prohibition."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The pertinent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Robert L. Weadock and James T. Walker, the petitioners, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 6877, now pending in the said court) against Arthur H. Merritt and Insular Trades, Inc. to compel defendants to render an accounting of the profits in certain business transactions between them, it being alleged that said profits had been misapplied by defendants to their own use.

    Acting on plaintiffs’ petition, Judge Potenciano Pecson issued a writ of preliminary attachment, plaintiffs put up a bond, duly approved by the court, in the amount of P150,000, and the sheriff of the City of Manila attached the articles of personal property inventoried in Annex B.

    On February 15, 1949, W. O. Merritt, said to be a brother of defendant Arthur H. Merritt, filed for and in behalf of Batangas Base R. Surplus Company, an alleged California partnership not registered in the Philippines, a third party claim for all or most of the attached property. As a result of the filing of this third party claim, the sheriff required plaintiffs to put up a bond in the sum of P551,425, said to be the value of the property attached, with the warning that if they failed to post such bond he, sheriff, would deliver the said property to the third party claimant.

    Plaintiffs opposed the third party claim on the grounds (a) that the affidavit in support of it was insufficient under section 14, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court; (b) that the valuation of the property claimed, at P551,425, was highly excessive; and (c) that Batangas Base R. Surplus Company was not a person under Philippine laws, the same having been allegedly organized under the California laws but not registered nor licensed to transact business in the Philippines. As an affirmative remedy, plaintiffs prayed that the sheriff be prohibited from releasing the said property and asked the court to make a reasonable assessment thereof.

    On March 23, 1949, judge Pecson denied plaintiffs’ opposition and their motion to prohibit the sheriff from releasing the property. It was at this stage of the case that plaintiffs filed, on May 31, the urgent ex-parte petition.

    Section 14, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If property taken be claimed by any other person than the defendant or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer while he has possession of the property, and a copy thereof upon the plaintiff, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property under the attachment, unless the plaintiff or his agent, on demand of said officer, indemnifies him against such claim by a bond in a sum not greater than the value of the property attached and in case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of attachment. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The third party claimant’s affidavit, by reason of which he claimed the release of the properties in question and on the strength of which the plaintiffs were required to file a bond, states that "the affiant’s right to the possession of said personal property is derived from the fact that the attached properties listed in Appendices A, B, and C have been purchased by the defendant Insular Trades, Inc. with the funds money of the said partnership Batangas Base R. Surplus Company and are therefore of the ownership of the said partnership."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The interest which W. O. Merritt claims to have in the attached property does not meet the requirements of section 14 of Rule 59, and should be ignored. He does not allege that Insular Trades, Inc. used Batangas Base R. Surplus Company’s funds as the latter’s agent or in the latter’s name. The allegations are more susceptible of the interpretation that Batangas Base R. Surplus Company is a mere creditor of Insular Trades, Inc. It is not inferable from these allegations that W. O. Merritt’s interest, or the interest of the partnership which he claims to represent, constitutes title to, or a lien on, the attached property and entitles him or his principal to its possession.

    This being the case, the discharge of the attachment and the release of the property were improper and illegal. In consequence, the sheriff should retake, re-seize or re-attach the property which he has released and keep it in his possession or under his control, under the original order of attachment and the bond filed in pursuance of that order.

    The urgent ex-parte petition is granted and the sheriff of Manila is ordered to proceed according to the tenor of this resolution.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Paras, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. L-2949   June 24, 1949 - ROBERT L. WEADOCK, ET AL., v. MACARIO OFILADA, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 68


    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