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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2309   May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS<br /><br />083 Phil 751

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2309. May 28, 1949.]

    LOPE SARREAL, Petitioner, v. SOTERO RODAS and FELIPE NATIVIDAD ET AL., Respondents.

    Claro M. Recto for Petitioner.

    Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian & Quasha for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    ATTACHMENT; BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES ATTACHMENT LIFTED BY FILING A BOND; DISSOLUTION OF ANOTHER ATTACHMENT SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED, JUSTIFIED. — In a suit against Wichita Distributors and Philippine Distributors, S obtained preliminary attachment on certain heavy equipment. Later he agreed with Philippine Distributors to lift the attachment provided the latter filed a bond. Such bond was submitted and the property was consequently released by order of the court. Later S found it necessary to attach some property of Wichita Distributors, got another attachment and induced the sheriff to seize the same properties previously released, claiming that they belonged to Wichita Distributors. Wherefore, Philippine Distributors protested and the judge cancelled the attachment upon motion. On certiorari, S contended that Philippine Distributors’ remedy should be a third party claim under Rule 59. Held: Philippine Distributors merely invited attention to the unjust nullification of the previous order of release, and the judge acted properly.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    The case. — The principal purpose of this petition for certiorari is to annul the orders of the respondent judges dated April 15 and June 12, 1948, cancelling the attachment of certain properties in Manila.

    Facts. — On March 24, 1947, Lope Sarreal filed in the Manila Court of First Instance an action to recover more than one million pesos from two corporations: Material Distributors Inc. of Wichita, Kansas, and Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc. We shall herein refer to the first as Wichita Distributors and to the second as Philippine Distributors.

    Upon his request, Judge Felipe Natividad authorized, on the next day, (March 25), the issuance of a preliminary attachment of properties of the defendant corporations after Sarreal had posted a bond of P50,000. Whereupon the sheriff of Manila took possession of certain heavy equipment and other goods situated at 179 Inverness, Santa Ana, Manila, valued at half a million pesos.

    On March 26, 1947, Lope Sarreal and the Philippine Distributors signed an agreement whereby the seizure would be lifted provided the latter put up a bond in the amount of P100,000 protecting the plaintiff, who incidentally reserved the right, for good reasons to ask either the reinstatement of the attachment or the increase of the amount of the bond, while the Philippine Distributors reserved the privilege subsequently to seek the lifting of the attachment. In view of the agreement, on March 27, 1947, the court decreed the dissolution of the attachment upon presentation of the bond. The impounded properties were consequently released.

    On April 10, 1947, the Philippine Distributors filed its answer to Sarreal’s complaint and among other things it denied any and all connections with the Wichita Distributors.

    Having allegedly received information that the Wichita Distributors would be dissolved in the United States, and being afraid that any judgment he might obtain against said entity would not be enforceable unless its properties were kept in the Philippines, Sarreal submitted in December 1947, a "motion for amendatory order" praying that the order of March 27, 1947, dissolving the attachment be "amended and clarified" so that the discharge therein authorized shall affect only the properties of the Philippine Distributors — the attachment to remain in force as against the Wichita Distributors. The court on Dec. 27, 1947, denied the motion, saying that its order was clear and unconditional vacating the only attachment issued in the case.

    Probably, as Sarreal alleges, Judge Natividad said during the discussion of the preceding motion that his remedy was to secure another attachment of the properties of the Wichita Distributors. So on April 8, 1948, when he could procure the requisite bond, Sarreal prepared and presented to Judge Sotero Rodas a new petition for attachment of the properties of said corporation informing him that Judge Natividad (then on vacation) had previously indicated his willingness to permit such levy. Judge Rodas, on April 9, 1948 issued the writ as prayed for. The sheriff then took possession of properties, practically all of which had been seized (and later released) under the previous attachment of March 25, 1947. Wherefore the Philippine Distributors, through Attorney A. J. Gibbs immediately filed a motion to dissolve this second attachment stating, among other reasons, that the properties newly attached were the same properties that had been released upon the strength of the one-hundred-thousand- peso bond said corporation had filed, and that, in effect, this new levy sets aside the previous order dissolving a similar attachment. Judge Rodas, after hearing the parties, cancelled his own writ of attachment by an order dated April 15, 1948. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Judge Natividad on June 12, 1948. Thereupon Sarreal instituted this special civil action.

    Discussion. — Sarreal charges the respondents with abuse of discretion contending that the attachment was in pursuance of verbal assurance or opinion of Judge Natividad. However, it does not appear that His Honor had advised a new attachment of the same properties released by the order of March 27, 1947. Judge Natividad evidently believed Sarreal could attach such properties of the Wichita Distributors as could legally be attached. Anyway Judge Rodas was not bound by another colleague’s advice that had not taken the form of a written final order.

    Sarreal also claims the respondents erred in releasing the attached properties of Wichita Distributors at the request of another entity, the Philippine Distributors. But the Philippine Distributors asserts dominion over those goods. Anyway, irrespective of ownership, the Philippine Distributors was practically awarded possession of the properties when it filed the bond of one hundred thousand pesos for their release from attachment, and was entitled to protection. Furthermore having formally agreed for a consideration (the bond) to the return of the properties to the Philippine Distributors, Sarreal had no justification subsequently to forget his word by causing a new attachment without at the same time returning the consideration (i. e. cancelling the bond) and/or securing the consent of the other party to the agreement.

    The argument of petitioner that the proper procedure to be followed by the Philippine Distributors was not to petition for the revocation of the order of attachment but to formulate a third party claim under Rule 59 would be correct if there had been no previous judicial directives upon which the said corporation could base its request for revocation. Under the facts the Philippine Distributors did nothing more than to invite the attention of the court to the resultant situation that its new order of attachment unjustly nullified the previous order of dissolution. And there is no doubt in our minds that Judges Rodas and Natividad acted properly in the circumstances described.

    Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto. Tuason. Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    BENGZON, J.:


    I hereby certify that the Chief Justice voted to deny the petition.

    G.R. No. L-2309   May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS<br /><br />083 Phil 751


    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