Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > August 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27260 August 8, 1968 - NAMARCO, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27260. August 8, 1968.]

NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION (NAMARCO), JOVENAL D. ALMENDRAS, Petitioners, v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, in his capacity as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and GERMAN E. VILLANUEVA, doing business under the name and style VILTRA COMPANY, Respondents.

Ernesto B. Habacon and Severo E. Tasico, for Petitioners.

Sesinio B. Belen for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; CLARIFICATORY JUDGMENT; SUPREME COURT DECISION DATED APRIL 29, 1968 (L-27441) CLARIFIED. — The Supreme Court did not touch on the merits of the decision rendered by the respondent judge which was the subject of the appeal in L-27441, but stated that the validity of the contract sought to be enforced by action having been raised as an issue on factual as well as legal grounds, the respondent court was not in a position to render a summary judgment. Moreover, if the summary judgment which said court rendered was the one provided for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, the facts or record clearly show that the requirements thereof were not complied with. Our decision and the present resolution do not in any way decide the question of whether or not the contract which VILTRA seeks to enforce against NAMARCO was perfected, and if it was, whether or not it is a valid and binding contract.


R E S O L U T I O N


DIZON, J.:


Before Us now is a motion for reconsideration or clarification filed in due time by respondents based on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The Court erred in resolving the question presented before it in this special civil action by ruling on the correctness, as a matter of law, of the summary judgment rendered by the respondent Judge. The summary judgment of the lower court is not in issue in this case, for the reason precisely that it is the subject of the appeal filed by petitioners with this Court in G.R. No . L-27441.

"2. Assuming, arguendo, that the present controversy cannot be resolved without deciding the merits of the summary judgment rendered by the respondent court, justice and fair play demand that the factual and evidentiary basis supporting the summary judgment should have been taken to account. This basis may be found in the records of G.R. No. L-27441, and this basis, we submit, supports in law the decision of the lower court.

"In the alternative that this Court finds it neither necessary nor appropriate to reconsider its decision in this case, respondents respectfully pray for clarificatory judgment holding that its resolution of the question presented in this case is without prejudice to, and does necessarily foreclose, the merits of the controversy involved in G.R. No. L-27441."

In our decision promulgated on April 29, 1968 We held, among other things, that the respondent court had erred: (1) in admitting the amended complaint filed in Civil Case No. 64696 because it resulted in transforming the original special civil action for mandamus into an ordinary civil action for specific performance; (2) in rendering, on motion of VILTRA, a summary partial decision inspite of the fact that in the answers filed by the defendants they had assailed the contract which VILTRA sought to enforce as not having been duly perfected, and as one against public policy, and on the further ground that VILTRA itself had committed a breach of its obligations thereunder.

In connection with the foregoing, We also made the following observations —

"It is obvious, therefore, that the amended pleading, which changed the very nature of the action, was clearly intended to correct VlLTRA’s error in instituting a special civil action for mandamus to enforce contractual obligations, and that the partial decision summarily rendered by the respondent judge under the irregular circumstances described above was intended to replace the unwarranted preliminary writ of mandatory injunction issued by him before the filing and admission of the last amended complaint.

"With regards to the rendition of the summary partial decision, it is clear that the same was irregular because in both answers filed by NAMARCO — one to the first amended complaint for mandamus, and the other to the last or second amended complaint entitled ‘For Specific Performance and Damages’ — the illegality and unenforceability of the alleged contract between VILTRA and NAMARCO — on both legal and factual grounds — was dully raised. Consequently, it was, to say the least, improvident to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction for its performance, or rendered partial judgment precisely requiring compliance with one of its essential features or stipulations. Having arrived at this conclusion, it follows that the several writs issued by the respondent judge for its execution are likewise irregular and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the above premises We issued the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for in the verified petition filed by petitioners herein.

The allegation made in the motion before Us to the effect that We had erroneously ruled "on the correctness, as a matter of law, of the summary judgment rendered by the respondent judge" inspite of the fact that said judgment was not in issue, is based upon an apparent mis-apprehension of the meaning of our decision. We say in this connection that We did not rule on the merits of said decision. In other words We did not hold that it was correct or otherwise. What We said was this: that the validity of the contract sought to be enforced by action having been raised as an issue on factual as well as legal grounds, the respondent court was not in a position to render a summary judgment. Moreover, if the summary judgment which said court rendered was the one provided for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, the facts of record clearly show that the requirements thereof were not complied with.

The second point raised in the motion for reconsideration is virtually resolved by what We have said heretofore. As We did not decide "the merits of the summary judgment" already referred to, there is no need to consider — as respondents pray — the alleged "factual and evidentiary basis" supporting the same.

As to the alternative prayer "for clarificatory judgment" to make it clear that neither our decision nor our resolution on the pending motion for reconsideration "is without prejudice to . . . the merits of the controversy involving G.R. No. L-27441", We believe that nothing further need be said except this: that our decision and the present resolution do not in any way decide the question of whether or not the contract which VILTRA seeks to enforce against NAMARCO was perfected, and if it was, whether or not it is a valid and binding contract.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for reconsideration is denied but our decision is clarified as above set forth.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.




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






August-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23129 August 2, 1968 - ISIDRA FARAON, ET AL v. TOMAS PRIELA

  • G.R. No. L-27260 August 8, 1968 - NAMARCO, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968 - DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA

  • G.R. No. L-19791 August 14, 1968 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24954 August 14, 1968 - CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25729 August 14, 1968 - PERFECTO CORDERO, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25295 August 14, 1968 - CONCORDIA T. ARONG v. CONRADA SENO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24493 August 14, 1968 - ADOLFO C. NAVARRO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-27205 August 15, 1968 - PCI BANK v. JUAN GRIÑO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29044 August 15, 1968 - WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19880 August 15, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19149 August 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968 - ROGER CHAVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24774 August 21, 1968 - RAUL CIPRIANO v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-28903 August 22, 1968 - MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. SANTIAGO YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 24116-17 August 22, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28511 August 22, 1968 - ARTURO SERIÑA v. CFI OF BUKIDNON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24845 August 22, 1968 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23768 August 23, 1968 - JOSE GARRIDO v. PILAR G. TUASON

  • A.C. No. 549 August 26, 1968 - MAXIMA C. LOPEZ v. MANUEL B. CASACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-19490 August 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19737 August 26, 1968 - HENG TONG TEXTILES CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24405 August 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DINGALAN FOREST PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28188 August 27, 1968 - J.M. JAVIER LOGGING CORP. v. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28613 August 27, 1968 - AMBROCIO LACUNA v. BENJAMIN H. ABES

  • G.R. No. L-25029 August 28, 1968 - PROCESO VINLUAN v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL. INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22822 August 30, 1968 - GREGORIA PALANCA v. AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968 - JUANITO CARLOS v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23482 August 30, 1968 - ALFONSO LACSON v. CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23541 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO GUARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23979 August 30, 1968 - HOMEOWNERS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24165 August 30, 1968 - JUAN M. SERRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24189 August 30, 1968 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. SAÑGILO-ITOGON WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24471 August 30, 1968 - SILVERIO MARCHAN, ET AL v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22766 August 30, 1968 - SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL v. MUN. OF SURIGAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22212 August 30, 1968 - FARM IMPLEMENT & MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25049 August 30, 1968 - FILEMON RAMIREZ, ET AL v. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28223 August 30, 1968 - MECH. DEPT. LABOR UNION SA PHIL. NATL. RAILWAYS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28891 August 30, 1968 - DBP v. ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25059 August 30, 1968 - FOITAF v. ANGEL MOJICA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28751 August 30, 1968 - JOSE TUBURAN v. FRANK BALLENER, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26197 August 30, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22769 August 30, 1968 - JUAN ISBERTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21965 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22183 August 30, 1968 - RECEIVER FOR NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. INC. v. PEDRO V. YBAÑEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-22359 & L-22524-25 August 30, 1968 - MATEO CORONEL, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29223 August 30, 1968 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20495 August 31, 1968 - BELEN CRUZ v. LUIS M. SIMON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20831 August 31, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL v. LUIS U. GO

  • G.R. No. L-23023 August 31, 1968 - JOSE P. STA. ANA v. FLORENTINO MALIWAT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24884 August 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24606 August 31, 1968 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL