Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24995. May 27, 1970.]

REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION, plaintiff, RAUL T. CONCEPCION and REYNALDO A. CONCEPCION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SALUSTIANO OCA and JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellees.

Agrava & Agrava, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Gil A. Obsequio for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW TO A HIGHER TRIBUNAL; REMEDY AGAINST ERRONEOUS ORDER; PARTY MUST NOT DISOBEY ORDER. — The argument that the lower court’ had no authority to issue the Order of redelivery because copy of the defendant’s counterbond was served on plaintiff’s counsel beyond the period allowed by the Rules and after the seized articles had been delivered to plaintiff, in reality involves the correctness and propriety of the Order, not the authority or jurisdiction to issue it. The Order may be erroneous, but not for that reason may appellants unilaterally disregard it. Their remedy against such error, or even if indeed the court’s jurisdiction is involved, is to seek a review by proper petition before a higher tribunal.

2. ID.; CONTEMPT OF COURT; DISOBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDER. — The theory espoused by appellants that a party may, at his own choice, directly disobey a court order which said party believes to be erroneous or beyond the court’s authority is fraught with serious consequences.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


The antecedent events which gave rise to this appeal are largely a matter of record and substantially undisputed. The order appealed from was issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XVI) in its Civil Case No. 59754, finding Raul T. Concepcion and Reynaldo A. Concepcion, president and general manager of the Republic Commodities Corporation, respectively.

On March 19, 1965 the Sheriff of Quezon City, in compliance with a writ of seizure regularly issued by the aforesaid Court in connection with a replevin case earlier filed by the Republic Commodities Corporation, seized from defendant Salustiano Oca 16 of the 19 second-hand "Carrier" air-conditioning units described in the writ. These units were the objects of a conditional sale by the said corporation in favor of defendant, who allegedly defaulted in the payment of the installments due.

Six (6) days after the articles were seized, or on March 25, 1965 to be exact, the sheriff, not having actually received any notice that defendant Salustiano Oca intended to seek their return, delivered them to plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of section 6, of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. 1 It later turned out that, unknown to the sheriff, defendant Oca had filed with the lower court the day before, March 24, 1965, and within the 5-day period fixed in the rule aforecited, a motion for the immediate recall of the order of seizure and at the same time offered a counter-replevin bond for the redelivery of the articles to him pursuant to Section 5 of the same Rule. But because copies of this motion and of the counterbond were received by plaintiff’s counsel only on the 27th of March 1965, plaintiff resisted defendant’s plea for redelivery, pointing out that inasmuch as copy of the counterbond was not served on plaintiff before it received the seized articles and within the reglementary period of five days, defendant had already lost his right to demand redelivery. This opposition notwithstanding, the lower court granted defendant’s motion in an order dated March 31, 1965. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 24, 1965.

Plaintiff took no steps to have the order of redelivery and the denial of their motion for reconsideration reviewed by a higher court; and due to its continuous refusal and/or failure to comply, defendant moved on June 29, 1965 that the present appellant 2 he declared in contempt. On July 10, 1965, the Court merely issued a reminder, directing appellants to comply with the March 31 Order, Plaintiff moved for a reconsideration of this reminder, but was turned down in an Order dated July 27, 1965, with a warning of drastic action against appellants unless the air-conditioning units were redelivered to defendant immediately. On August 11, 1965 the lower court declared them in contempt and imposed upon each of them a fine of P100. Hence this appeal.

Appellants’ main argument is that the lower court had no authority to issue the Order of redelivery because copy of the defendant’s counterbond was served on plaintiff’s counsel beyond the period allowed by the Rules and after the seized articles had been delivered to plaintiff. The argument in reality involves the correctness and propriety of the Order, not the authority or jurisdiction to issue it. The Order may be erroneous, but not for that reason may appellants unilaterally disregard it. Their remedy against such error, or even if indeed the court’s jurisdiction is involved, is to seek a review by proper petition before a higher tribunal.

The theory espoused by appellants that a party may, at his own choice, directly disobey a court order which said party believes to be erroneous or beyond the court’s authority is fraught with serious consequences. This Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Enrique Fernando, has had occasion to condemn a similar attitude in another case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The failure to abide by the orders and processes of judicial . . . agencies . . . gives rise to a serious concern. It engenders at the very least the well-founded suspicion that such an attitude betrays an absence of good faith. It is indicative of a belief at war with all that adjudication stands for.

No one may be permitted to take the law into his own hands. No one, much less the party immediately concerned, should have the final say on the validity or lack of it of one’s course of conduct. Centuries of reliance on the judicial process repel such a notion . . .

". . . Such refusal to accord due respect and yield obedience to what a court or administrative tribunal ordains is fraught with much gravel consequences . . . If such a conduct were not condemned, some other group or groups emboldened by the absence of any reproof or disapproval may conduct themselves similarly. The injury to the rule of law may well-nigh be irreparable.

Law stands for order, for the peaceful and systematic adjustment of frictions and conflicts unavoidable in a modern society with his complexities and clashing interests. The instrumentality for such balancing or harmonization is the judiciary and other agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers. When judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals speak, what they decree must be obeyed; what they ordain must be followed. A party dissatisfied may ask for reconsideration and, if denied, may go on to higher tribunal. As long as the orders stand unmodified, however, they must, even if susceptible to well-founded doubts on jurisdictional grounds, be faithfully complied with." (PAFLU v. Salvador, L-29471 and L-29487, September 28, 1968).

We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the points raised by appellants in their brief, which have to do with the correct interpretation of the Rules applicable to the order of redelivery, not with appellant’s liability for contempt by reason of their continued defiance of court authority.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. "SEC. 6. Disposition of property by officer. — If within five (5) days after the taking of the property by the officer the defendant does not object to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, or require the return of the property as provided in the last preceding section; or if the defendant so objects, and the plaintiff’s first or new bond is approved; or if the defendant so requires and his bond is objected to and found insufficient and he does not forthwith file an approved bond, the property shall be delivered to the plaintiff . . ." (Rule 60).

2. Raul T. Concepcion and Reynaldo A. Concepcion, as president and general manager, respectively, of plaintiff corporation, were the persons called upon to comply with the said Order of March 31, 1965.




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






May-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO