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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA<br /><br />102 Phil 937

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-11248. January 30, 1958.]

    ANACLETA VILLAROMAN and PEDRO VILLAROMAN, JR., Petitioners, v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA and HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Respondents.

    Manuel G. Aliño for petitioners.


    SYLLABUS


    PLEADING AND PRACTICE;. EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT, WHEN TO BE MADE; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; EFFECT ON PERIOD TO APPEAL. — It is a fundamental rule of procedure that, except in special cases and under certain circumstances, the execution of a judgment to order shall issue only upon the expiration of the period to appeal where no such appeal has been perfected (Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and the filing of a motion for the reconsideration of such decision or order suspends the running of the period of its finality.


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    Pedro Villaroman, Jr., and Anacleta Villaroman, husband and wife, were the defendants in a civil case filed by Quirino Sta. Maria with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 2141). On July 16, 1956, the Court rendered judgment therein finding the spouses Villaroman liable as charged and ordered them to return the palay deposited by plaintiff in their warehouse or pay the value thereof amounting to P745.00, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the action, plus the sum of P200.00 for damages and attorney’s fees, and for costs. A copy of this decision was said to have been received by defendants on July 19, 1956. On August 7, 1956, or 19 days thereafter, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the findings of the Court were contrary to law and the evidence adduced during the trial, with additional prayer for leave to file a third party complaint, which motion was denied by the Court in its order of August 16, 1956, received by defendants on August 20 of the same year. The prayer for leave to file a third party complaint was also denied for having been presented out of time.

    It appears from the record that on August 20, 1956, plaintiff Sta. Maria filed a motion for execution of the decision of July 16, 1956, contending that same had already become final as no appeal was taken therefrom, and the Court, despite the objection of defendants, granted the same and issued on August 24, 1956, a writ of execution which was correspondingly registered with the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija on August 28, 1956. This prompted the defendants to file on this later date separate motions seeking to set aside the order of execution and for the approval of the appeal bond and record on appeal, but the Court, also in separate orders dated August 30, 1956, denied the first for lack of merit and the second for having been filed out of time.

    From these orders, defendants filed with Us the instant petition for certiorari which was given due course by resolution of this Court of September 26, 1956, and upon petitioner’s filing a bond for P200.00, the preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent Judge from enforcing his order of August 24, 1956, was consequently issued. Notwithstanding the summons sent in connection with this case, We find that respondents Quirino Sta. Marìa and he Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija did not file their respective answers to the petition. Petitioners also failed to elaborate their stand by means of any memorandum. In resolving, therefore, the issue presented by this action, i.e., whether or not the lower Court acted properly in ordering the execution of the decision of July 16, 1956, and in denying the approval of the appeal bond and record on appeal, We have to rely solely on the facts and circumstances stated in the petition.

    It is a fundamental rule of procedure that the execution of a judgment or order shall issue only upon the expiration of the period to appeal where no such appeal has been perfected (Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and the filing of a motion for the reconsideration of such decision or order suspends the running of the period of its finality.

    In the case at bar, defendants were notified of the decision on July 19, 1956, and the motion for the reconsideration filed on August 7 of the same year was presented 19 days after receipt of said decision. Considering that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was received by defendants on August 20, 1956, and that the prescriptive period within which to perfect an appeal continued to run again only on that date, We find that defendants had 11 days more to perfect their appeal. The writ of execution issued by the Court on August 24, 1956, pursuant to the motion of respondent Sta. Marìa, who appeared to have been notified of and furnished with copy of said motion for reconsideration, was made 23 days after the promulgation of the decision, that is, before the expiration of the period that defendants had to appeal.

    We looked into the possibility that the motion for reconsiderations might have been a pro forma one which would thus justify the Court’s action, for such kind of motion will not suspend the running of the period to appeal. But a reading of the same — delineating the facts relied upon by defendants in their desire to secure a reconsideration of the decision — convinces Us that it is not a mere pro forma pleading. Moreover, there is no such allegation to that effect in the motion for execution filed by the plaintiff, nor that was even mentioned in the order of the court denying the said motion for reconsideration.

    We are also aware that there are instances where the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, may order the execution of a decision even before the expiration of the period to appeal, but in these cases the reason therefor must be specifically stated in the order (Section 2, Rule 39, Rules of Court). Nothing of this sort, however, appears in the case at bar, and taking into account the circumstances surrounding the present action, there seems to be no valid and special reason that would justify the issuance by the Court a quo of the writ of execution before the expiration of the statutory period to appeal and the disapproval of the appeal bond and record on appeal which We find to have been filed on time.

    Wherefore, the orders of the Court of August 24, 1956, issuing the write of execution, of August 30, 1956, denying the motion to annul said writ, and of August 30, 1956, denying the approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond, are hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby made permanent. Costs taxed against respondent Quirino Sta. Marìa. It is so ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A. Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA<br /><br />102 Phil 937


    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