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
 

   
July-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11485 July 11, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO BACSA

    104 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-11567 July 17, 1958 - ARSENIO FERRERIA, ET AL. v. MANUELA IBARRA VDA. DE GONZALES, ET AL.

    104 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-11107 July 25, 1958 - LUIS SARABIA, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

    104 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-11769 July 25, 1958 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    104 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-11940 July 25, 1958 - SEVERINO DAGDAG, JR., ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    104 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-12809 July 25, 1958 - SALVADOR LAURILLA v. REMEDIOS T. UICHANGCO, ET AL.

    104 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-9124 July 28, 1958 - BERNARDO HEBRON v. EULALIO D. REYES

    104 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-11752 July 30, 1958 - JOSE GATTOC v. HON. JUAN SARENAS

    104 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-6817 July 31, 1958 - ESTEFANIA R. VDA. DE PIROVANO v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO. INC.

    104 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-9435 July 31, 1958 - FREDERICK L. WORCESTER v. RAMON LORENZANA

    104 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-10152 July 31, 1958 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.

    104 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-11251 July 31, 1958 - MAYON TRADING CO., INC. v. CO BUN KIM

    104 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-11920 July 31, 1958 - JUAN V. AGUSTIN v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    104 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-11986 July 31, 1958 - BERNARDO MANALANG, ET AL. v. ELVIRA TUASON DE RICKARDS, ET AL.

    104 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-12337 July 31, 1958 - JESUS AGUIRRE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    104 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-12379 July 31, 1958 - NUGUID & NUGUID v. VENANCIO CARIÑO

    104 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    104 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-13242 July 31, 1958 - LEON REFORMA v. MACARIO DE LUNA

    104 Phil 278

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-12809   July 25, 1958 - SALVADOR LAURILLA v. REMEDIOS T. UICHANGCO, ET AL. <br /><br />104 Phil 171

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-12809. July 25, 1958.]

    SALVADOR LAURILLA, Petitioner, v. REMEDIOS T. UICHANGCO, CONRADO B. UICHANGCO, HON. FROILAN BAYONA, Judge Branch I, Court of First Instance of Manila and MACARIO OFILADA, Ex-Officio Sheriff, City of Manila, Respondents.

    Balguma & Olandesa for Petitioner.

    Mariano M. de Joya and Luis R. Lara, Jr. for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL AND ERROR; PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF RECORD ON APPEAL; MOTION FOR EXECUTION; JURISDICTION OF COURT. — If the order approving the record on appeal also requires the appellant to file a memorandum to support his opposition to the motion for execution previously filed and pending consideration by the court, said order is merely provisional in character. That being the case, the court retains jurisdiction to resolve the motion for execution and to order it issued unless the appellant files the corresponding supersedeas bond. The subsequent issuance of the writs of execution constitutes mere implementations of the power thus reserved and consequently, it can not be said that the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the same.

    2. ID.; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; REASONS NEED NOT APPEAR IN THE ORDER. - It is already settled jurisprudence that the reasons for issuing execution pending appeal need not appear in the order itself, and may appear by reference to the motion praying for the issuance of the writ (Joven v. Boncan, 67 Phil., 562; Lusk v. Stevens, 64 Phil., 154).


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.B.L., J.:


    On August 20, 1955, Remedios T. Uichangco and Conrado B. Uichangco filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 27228) against Salvador Laurilla for the recovery of the possession of Lot No. 28 Block No. 16, District of Malate, situated at 494 San Andres, Manila, and unpaid rentals in the amount of P623.00.

    After trial, the court rendered judgment condemning defendant Laurilla to pay the plaintiffs back rentals in the amount of P868.00 and the monthly rentals from March, 1956 until he vacate the premises, as well as attorney’s fees of 25% of the amount claimed, interests, and costs. From this judgment, defendant Laurilla appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Before the period for appeal expired, and prior to the perfection of defendant’s appeal, plaintiffs moved for the execution of the judgment on the ground that defendant had not made any effort to pay either the back rentals or the monthly rentals accruing after the judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and filed a record of appeal; and the court, while approving the same, gave the appellant ten days to file a written memorandum in support of his opposition, which he failed to do. Whereupon, on February 7, 1957, the lower court ordered the execution of the judgment unless defendant filed a supersedeas bond in the amount of P2,000 within ten days. Instead of filing the required bond, defendant moved to have said order of execution set aside, claiming that as his record of appeal was approved by the court on January 12, 1957, his appeal was deemed perfected as of that date and consequently, the court had lost jurisdiction to issue its order of February 7, 1957. Plaintiffs, upon the other hand, argued that defendant’s appeal had not yet been perfected because defendant’s appeal bond had not been approved by the court. On February 23, 1957, the lower court denied defendant’s motion to have its order of February 7, 1957 set aside, and on March 14, 1957 issued a writ of execution commanding the sheriff to execute the judgment in the case, which writ was later nullified by the court because it did not conform to the dispositive portion of the judgment and so, an alias writ of execution was issued. In accordance with the second writ of execution, the sheriff advertised for sale at public auction the house of defendant located on the land in question which had been previously attached to satisfy the judgment in the case. Unable to have the sale of his house suspended, defendant filed the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with this Court, and upon his putting up a bond of P1,500, we issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

    Petitioner Laurilla claims, first, that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to issue its order of execution of February 7, 1957, because his appeal had been perfected when his record of appeal was approved by the court on January 12, 1957, and thereafter, the lower court lost jurisdiction over the case; and second, that the order of execution of February 7, 1957 was issued by the court below in grave abuse of its discretion because it did not state any special reasons for the execution pending appeal as required by section 2, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court.

    The order approving the record of appeal is couched in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "There being no opposition to the record on appeal filed by the appellant in this case, the same is hereby approved. Likewise, Atty. Balguna for the defendant Salvador Laurilla, is hereby given ten (10) days from today within which to file a written memorandum in support of his opposition to the motion for execution filed by Atty. Mariano M. de Joya, after which the said motion for execution will be deemed submitted for resolution." (Annex "B", Petition)

    From the foregoing order it is apparent that the approval given to the record of appeal filed by the petitioner in the court below was merely provisional; and that both the court and the parties understood that such approval was not final, since there was another question still pending, to wit, whether a writ of execution should be issued pending appeal. It is to be presumed that the court and the parties knew that if the court granted the writ of execution, its order had to be included in the records to be elevated to the appellate court (Rule 39, sec. 2) and hence, the record of appeal, as it stood before the court acted on the motion for execution, could not be considered complete and definitive. It is plain that if the approval of the record was final and not merely provisional, there was no sense in giving the parties time to submit memoranda on the merits of the motion for execution. The fact that the appellant, now petitioner, did not call attention at the time to the futility of submitting a memorandum, since upon approval of the record of appeal the court would no longer have jurisdiction to issue execution, confirms our view that the approval of the record was understood by all concerned to be provisional in character. That being the case, the court retained jurisdiction to resolve the motion for execution and to order it issued unless the appellant filed the corresponding supersedeas bond. The subsequent issuance of the writs of execution were mere implementations of the power thus reserved and consequently, it can not be said that the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the same.

    With regard to the second ground, it is already settled jurisprudence that the reasons for issuing execution pending appeal need not appear in the order itself, and may appear by reference to the motion praying for the issuance of the writ (Joven v. Boncan, 67 Phil. 562; Lusk v. Stevens, 64 Phil. 154).

    Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is denied and the preliminary injunction order dissolved, with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

    Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-12809   July 25, 1958 - SALVADOR LAURILLA v. REMEDIOS T. UICHANGCO, ET AL. <br /><br />104 Phil 171


    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