Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16483. April 30, 1964.]

INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE MARIA DE LA CRUZ, MARGARITA DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., Oppositor-Appellant.

Jorge A. Pascua for Petitioner-Appellee.

Carlos, Laurea & Associates for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; EXECUTORY ORDER MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED. — Where an order was final in character and became executory, it is held that it may not be reconsidered by the lower court.

2. ID.; WHEN AN ORDER IS DEEMED FINAL IN CHARACTER. — What really determines whether a judgment or an order is final or merely interlocutory is whether it puts an end to the litigation or leaves something to be done therein on the merits.

3. ID.; ID.; ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO REQUIRE SURETY TO PAY LIABILITY DEEMED FINAL IN CHARACTER. — An order denying the new administrator’s motion to require the surety of the former administrator to pay the latter’s liability in favor of the estate is final in character because it was a final disposition of the matter involved in said motion.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


In the Intestate Estate of the late Maria de la Cruz (Special Proceedings No. 11-J of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija) herein appellee Margarita de la Cruz filed a motion dated April 28, 1957 for an order requiring appellant Plaridel Surety and Insurance Co. Inc., as surety for Teodorico Adsuara, the former Administrator, to pay the latter’s liability in favor of said estate in the sum of P2,413.00. The Court, however, denied the motion on April 29, 1957, on the ground that it was not the proper remedy."cralaw virtua1aw library

On November 28 of the same year, appellee filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order. This was granted by the court in its order of December 9 whereby it set aside the order of denial aforesaid and granted appellee’s original motion of April 28, 1957 by directing herein appellant to pay to the then incumbent administrator the sum of P2,413.00 within 30 days from notice. Subsequently, upon motion of appellant, the Court suspended its order of December 9 and allowed it to file an opposition to appellee’s motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, appellant filed two separate oppositions alleging that (1) the order of denial of April 29 had become final without appellee having appealed therefrom; (2) that it cannot be held liable under its bond unless its liability had been previously determined by proper accounting in which it should have been allowed to intervene; (3) that a separate action should be maintained against the principal and surety; and (4) that the bond was not answerable for Adsuara’s obligation, the same having been incurred prior to the effectivity of said bond.

On February 28, 1958, the Court issued an order, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, this Court hereby reconsiders its order dated April 29, 1957 and resets the hearing on the motion filed by the administrator on April 28, 1957 on March 14, 1958, at 8:80 o’clock in the morning."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the date set forth in the above-quoted order, appellant’s counsel appeared but, instead of going on with the hearing, he manifested his intention to appeal from said order. In fact, on the same date he filed his Notice of Appeal and complied with the other requirements to perfect his appeal.

The main issue to be resolved is whether the order appealed from should be set aside on the ground that when appellee filed her motion for reconsideration on November 28, 1957, the order sought to be reconsidered dated April 29 of the same year had already become final and executory.

The lower court held in the order appealed from that its order of April 29, 1957 was merely interlocutory because, instead of deciding the merits of the motion of the administrator to compel appellant to satisfy the liability of the former administrator, said order denied the motion aforesaid on the ground that it was "not the proper remedy."cralaw virtua1aw library

It must be borne in mind in this connection that what really determines whether a judgment or an order is final or merely interlocutory is whether it puts an end to the litigation (Olsen & Co. v. Olsen 48 Phil. 238) or leaves something to be done therein on the merits (Hodges v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-4134, October 25, 1951, Gequillana v. Buenaventura, 48 O.G., 63). Thus, an order of dismissal of an action is final in character and not merely interlocutory, while an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. In our opinion the lower court’s order of April 29, 1957 — denying appellee’s motion of April 28, 1957 — which appellee sought to have reconsidered, was final in character because it was a final disposition of the matter involved in the motion aforesaid. That order denied the administrator’s motion. Consequently, the latter’s remedy was to appeal therefrom, specially because said order was manifestly erroneous, it being well settled in this jurisdiction that the liability of a surety upon the bond filed in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person is enforceable in the same probate proceeding after hearing all the parties concerned. Appellee, however, failed to seek remedy by appeal and instead allowed seven months to elapse before filing her motion for reconsideration on November 28, 1957. At that time, it seems obvious, the order of denial had already become executory.

We hold, therefore, that the lower court committed a reversible error in issuing the appealed order of February 28, 1958, reconsidering the aforesaid executory order and resetting for hearing the same matter which had already been finally disposed of.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.