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-12337   July 31, 1958 - JESUS AGUIRRE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL. <br /><br />104 Phil 259

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-12337. July 31, 1958.]

    JESUS AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, THE SHERIFF OF MANILA and LEONORA & COMPANY, Respondents.

    Sisenando Villaluz for Petitioner.

    Roy, Javier & Associates for the respondent Company.


    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL AND ERROR; COURT’S JURISDICTION: RECORD ON APPEAL ONCE APPROVED; TO ISSUE OR DISSOLVE WRIT OF EXECUTION. — Under section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court before the expiration of the time to appeal, the trial court is vested with the discretion to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. However, once the record on appeal has been approved, specially when said record has already been forwarded to the appellate Court, the trial Court no longer has jurisdiction either to issue a writ of execution or to dissolve a writ of execution already issued before the perfection of the appeal. (Syquia v. Concepcion and Palma, 60 Phil., 186; Uvero Et. Al., v. Court of Appeals Et. Al., 95 Phil., 11; LVM Transportation Co. Et. Al., v. Hon. Enrique Fernandez, G. R. No. L-9136, May 31, 1958).


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Jesus Aguirre, against respondent Judge Macadaeg of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Sheriff of said city, and Leonora & Company. The petition was given due course and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued.

    To better understand the background and basis of the present case, it is advisable to narrate some of the facts in two interrelated cases of the lower court. The National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, later referred to as the NASSCO, advertised for the purchase of a secondhand belted steel tank with capacity of 210,000 gallons, through public bidding. The Leonora & Company, being the lowest bidder for the amount of P14,500, was awarded the bid, and on December 5, 1954, it bought a secondhand belted steeltank from Zosimo Gabriel, who previously had purchased it from Vicente Aldaba and Teresa Aldaba on December 2, 1954. It turned out, however, that before the Aldabas sold the tank to Gabriel, herein petitioner Aguirre had bought the same tank from them and paid the amount of P900 as purchase price. Aguirre tried to take possession of the tank, but the Bureau of Public Works filed a claim to it and the municipal authorities of Los Baños where the tank was located, would not allow Aguirre to take possession of the tank, much less take it away. This was probably the reason why the Aldabas made a second sale of the same tank to Gabriel, who in turn made the sale to the Leonora & Co. and the latter, after dismantling the same, buying spare parts therefor and putting the tank in a useable condition, could deliver it to the NASSCO, at Engineers Island, Manila, on December 20, 1954. Aguirre immediately filed formal notice with the NASSCO of his rights and claim of prior ownership and demanded suspension of payment by the NASSCO to Leonora & Company, until the question of ownership of the tank shall have been settled. Aguirre then filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 24914, against Leonora & Company and the Aldabas for delivery to him of the tank, with damages. The NASSCO suspended payment for the steel tank. As a result of this suspension of payment, the Leonora & Company, through its manager, filed a complaint on October 24, 1955 against the NASSCO, to recover the amount of P14,500 for the purchase price of the tank or else to reimburse it in the amount of P12,299, which allegedly represents the actual investment and expenses made and incurred by it in repairing the tank and putting it in a useable condition, plus damages and attorney’s fees. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 27988. Aguirre was allowed to intervene and he filed a complaint in intervention.

    Civil Case No. 24914 was decided first by the lower court, the dispositive part of which decision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares Jesus Aguirre the absolute owner of the property described in his complaint. The subsequent sale made by defendants Aldaba to Zosimo Gabriel, the sale made by Zosimo Gabriel to defendant Leonora and Co.; and the sale made by defendant Leonora and Co. to the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, are hereby declared null and void and of no effect. Defendants Aldaba and Leonora and Co. and the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation are hereby ordered to deliver to plaintiff Jesus Aguirre the tank in question. Failure to make such delivery, defendant National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, in whose possession the tank is at present, shall pay to the said Jesus Aguirre the original purchase price of the tank in the amount of P900."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It would appear that this decision became final. Then, on September 29, 1956, the same court decided Case No. 27988, based on a stipulation of facts filed by the parties therein, including intervenor Aguirre. After reproducing the said stipulation of facts and on the basis thereof, the court rendered decision thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Intervenor Jesus Aguirre, as we have already declared in Civil Case No. 24914, is hereby adjudged owner of the oil tank in question. Defendant National Shipyards and Steel Corporation is hereby ordered to deliver to the said Jesus Aguirre such tank, but in the event that delivery is not possible, to pay to Aguirre the purchase price of P900, and to Leonora and Co. the amount of P11,299 which represents the costs of the improvement made by the said Leonora & Co.

    "In the event that the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation shall deliver the oil tank to Jesus Aguirre as it is, the latter shall pay to Leonora and Co. the amount of P11,299 which, as already stated was spent by Leonora and Co. for the improvement of the tank."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Aguirre filed a motion for reconsideration or for new trial in said Case No. 27988, which motion was denied. He perfected his appeal and according to Annex B of his petition for certiorari, the Clerk of Court forwarded the amended record on appeal to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals on April 17, 1957. But before that date, plaintiff Leonora & Company in said Civil Case No. 27988 filed a motion for execution of the judgment, which motion was opposed by Aguirre. It would appear that the motion for execution was granted though belatedly, because according to Annex C of the petition for certiorari, the writ of execution was actually issued on April 23, 1957 (Case No. 27988), which was several days after the record on appeal had been approved and supposedly been forwarded by the Clerk of Court to the Court of Appeals. On the basis of this issuance of the writ of execution, Aguirre filed the present petition, claiming that when the writ of execution was issued, the appeal had already been perfected and the record on appeal had already been forwarded to the Court of Appeals, naturally, the lower court had already lost jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution.

    Under Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, before the expiration of the time to appeal, the trial court is vested with the discretion to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. However, once the record on appeal has been approved, specially when said record has already been forwarded to the appellate court, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction either to issue a writ of execution or to dissolve a writ of execution already issued before the perfection of the appeal. (Syquia v. Concepcion and Palma, 60 Phil. 186; Uvero, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals Et. Al., 95 Phil., 11; LVM Transportation Co. Et. Al. v. Hon. Enrique Fernandez, G. R. No. L-9136, May 31, 1958). It is therefore evident that the writ of execution issued on April 23, 1957, was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.

    In view of the foregoing, the writ of certiorari is hereby granted, the writ of execution issued by the trial court is hereby set aside and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent. Respondent Leonora & Company will pay the costs.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-12337   July 31, 1958 - JESUS AGUIRRE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL. <br /><br />104 Phil 259


    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