Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > May 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978 - EMMA C. ONA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-44537. May 26, 1978.]

EMMA C. ONA, in her capacity as Sheriff of Caloocan City, Petitioner, v. HON. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV and UNI-ACE SALES CORPORATION, Respondents.

Zutico L. Dy for Petitioner.

Filonilo N. Cases for respondent Corporation.

SYNOPSIS


Pursuant to an order issued by the Rizal Court of First Instance in a case before it, Petitioner, sheirff of Caloocan City, levied upon certain properties, among which were several sewing machines. Claiming to be the owner of said machines, private respondent filed a third-party claim with petitioner. When it failed to take possession thereof, private respondent sued petitioner in the Manila Court of First Instance, presided over by respondent judge, praying among others, that the sewing machines be seized and thereafter delivered to it in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Respondent judge ordered petitioner to take possession of and deliver the sewing machines to private Respondent. Despite petitioner’s manifestation that she could not comply with the order of seizure because said sewing machines are in custodia legis, having been previously attached pursuant to a valid order of the Rizal Court of First Instance and are held by hr subject to the control of the latter court, respondent judge cited petitioner for indirect contempt.

The Supreme Court ruled that respondent judge has no jurisdiction to order the delivery of the sewing machines, the same being under attachment.

Petition given due course and writ prayed for granted.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGES; POWERS; JUDGE OF ONE BRANCH CANNOT ANNUL ORDER OF JUDGE OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE SAME COURT. — A judge of a branch of a court cannot annul the order of a judge of another branch of the same court because both of them are judges of the same category and act idependently but coordinately, unless the second judge acts in the place of the first judge in the same proceeding.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDGE CANNOT ORDER RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ATTACHED. — A property levied upon pursuant to a valid order of attachment issued by a judge of one branch is in custodia legis and cannot be ordered delivered or returned by the judge of another branch of the same court in an action for replevins in view of Rule 60, section 2, par. (c) of the Rules of Court. The words "or attachment" were added to the new provision for the purpose of precluding the occurrence of a dismal situation whereby a judge of one branch can revoke the order issued by a judge of another branch of the same court, to the great prejudice of the orderly administration of justice.

3. CONTEMPT; INDIRECT CONTEMPT; WHEN NOT PROPER. — A sheriff cannot be held for indirect contempt by the judge of one branch for disobeying his order to take possession of and deliver a personal property that had been previously attached pursuant to a valid order of the judge of another branch of the same court.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, to annul and set aside the orders issued by the respondent judge on November 10, 1975 and August 10, 1976, in Civil Case No. 99508 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

It appears that on July 29, 1975, the Sheriff of Caloocan City levied upon the properties of the spouses Wilfredo and Segundina Garcia pursuant to an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XII, Caloocan City, in Civil Case No. 3640, entitled: "Uniwide Marketing Co., plaintiff, versus Wilfredo Garcia, Et Al., Defendants." Among those properties attached were several sewing machines.

On August 5, 1975, the Uni-Ace Sales Corporation filed a third-party claim with the Sheriff, alleging that it is the owner of the aforementioned sewing machines by virtue of a deed of sale executed in its favor by Wilfredo Garcia on June 2, 1975. 1

The Uniwide Marketing Corporation opposed the third-party claim upon the ground that the affidavit of the third-party claimant is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court since the deed of sale upon which the third-party claim is based, is simulated and fictitious, 2 and on September 1, 1975, it filed an indemnity bond in the amount of P15,000.00, to protect and indemnify the Sheriff fully for all damages and liabilities which may arise therefrom. 3

Unable to secure possession of the sewing machines, the Uni-Ace Sales Corporation filed an action against the Sheriff and/or his deputies before the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 99508, praying that the sewing machines in question be seized and thereafter delivered to it in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court; and, after hearing, to declare it the owner and rightful possessor of the property, and to order the Sheriff and/or his deputies to pay damages and costs of suit. 4

On November 10, 1975, the Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the Sheriff of Caloocan City to take possession of the sewing machines described therein and deliver the same to the Uni-Ace Sales Corporation subject to the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Rule 60, Rules of Court. 5

On November 26, 1975, the Sheriff filed a Manifestation with the court, stating her inability to comply with the order of seizure for the reason that the said sewing machines are in custodia legis, having been previously attached pursuant to a valid order of attachment issued in Civil Case No. 3640 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and are held by the Sheriff subject to the control of the latter court. 6

Nonetheless, the Court of First Instance of Manila, upon petition of the Uni-Ace Sales Corporation, 7 issued an order on August 10, 1976, finding the Sheriff guilty of indirect contempt for failure to obey an order issued by the said court and sentenced her to pay a fine of P100.00 with a warning that her failure to comply with the aforesaid order of November 10, 1975 would be dealt with more severely by the court. 8

The Sheriff of Caloocan City filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order, 9 but her motion was denied on August 24, 1976. 10 So, the said Sheriff filed the instant petition to set aside the orders issued by the respondent judge on November 10, 1975 and August 10, 1976 in Civil Case No. 99508 of the Court of First Instance of Manila upon the ground that the said respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing said orders since the property sought to be delivered is already in custodia legis.chanrobles law library

The private respondent, Uni-Ace Sales Corporation, upon the other hand, maintains that even if the property subject of the "Order for the Seizure of Personal Property," issued on November 10, 1975, is in custodia legis by another court, such order (replevin) can be enforced and implemented.

Passing upon a similar question, the Court, in the case of Montesa, etc., Et. Al. v. Manila Cordage Co., 11 ruled that courts have no jurisdiction to order the delivery of personal property (replevin) to the plaintiff if the property is under attachment. The Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El Buick Sedan con placa No. 1074 habia sido embargado por el Sheriff en virtud de una orden de embargo preventivo dictada, en la causa civil No. 9126, y el automovil no esta exento de embargo (Regla 39, art. 12). No podia, por tanto, el Hon. Juez Montesa, por medio de una orden interlocutoria, disponer la entrega a los demandantes de dicho automovil en la causa civil No. 10624, anulando ipso facto la orden de embargo preventivo dictada en la causa civil No. 9126. Fue una indebida intromision de un juez en la orden de otro juez de igual categoria. En realidad, la orden dictada en la causa civil No. 10624 deshizo la que otro juez decreto en la causa No. 9126. El juez de una sala de un juzgado no debe anular la orden de otro juez de otra sala del mismo juzgado porque ambos, son jueces de la misma categoria y actuan independiente pero coordinadamente, a menos que el segundo actue en lugar del primero sobre un mismo expediente. . . . .

". . . (B)ajo el reglamento vigente, no se puede ordenar la entrega de los bienes embargados preventivamente porque la Regla 62, (now Rule 60) articulo 2, parrafo (c), dispone lo siguiente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Que no han sido secuestrados para satisfacer contribucion alguna, ni multa por mandato de la ley, ni embargados en virtud de ejecuci "n o embargo preventivo contra los bienes del demandante, o en caso de serlo asi, que son bienes exentos de embargo.’

"En la nueva disposicion se añadieron las palabras ‘o embargo preventivo’. Esta es la innovacion adoptada por el nuevo reglamento, con el evidente proposito de impedir el triste espectaculo de que un juez revoque la orden dictada por otro juez, en perjuicio de la ordenada administracion de justicia."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view thereof, the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the Sheriff of Caloocan City to deliver the sewing machines in question unto the private respondent Uni-Ace Sales Corporation and in declaring the said Sheriff in contempt of court for not obeying said order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is given due course and the writ prayed for is hereby granted. The orders issued by the respondent Judge on November 10, 1975 and August 10, 1976 in Civil Case No. 99608 of the Court of First Instance of Manila are accordingly annulled and set aside. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. Costs against the private respondent Uni-Ace Sales Corporation.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo and Santos, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Concurs. It would seem that the title to the sewing machines in question cannot be decided without impleading Uniwide Marketing Co. and Wilfredo Garcia in Civil Case No. 99508 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 29.

2. Id, p. 34.

3. Id. p. 39.

4. Id., p. 18.

5. Id., p. 27.

6. Id., p. 28.

7. Id., p. 42.

8. Id. p. 51.

9. Id., p. 59.

10. Id., p. 67.

11. 92 Phil. 25.




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-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25265 May 9, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978 - CONCHITA CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27350-51 May 11, 1978 - WIL WILHEMSEN, INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS BALUYUT

  • G.R. No. L-29217 May 11, 1978 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER PLANT EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32959 May 11, 1978 - JAGUAR TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. JUAN CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38663 and L-40740 May 11, 1978 - JOSE BRIONES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39958 May 11, 1978 - JESUS D. JUREIDINI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41753 May 11, 1978 - JOSE V. HERRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43213 May 11, 1978 - SOCORRO T. AGUILAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43512 May 11, 1978 - ROSALIA VDA. DE RANDOY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47570-71 May 11, 1978 - MONARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31298 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32529 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TY SUI WONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45768 May 12, 1978 - DEMETRIO D. MOLET v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47494 May 15, 1978 - AIDA ROBLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27800 May 16, 1978 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ARSENIO OLMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38006 May 16, 1978 - NATALIA DE LAS ALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA

  • A.C. No. 301 May 18, 1978 - BENITO SACO v. DONATO A. CARDONA

  • G.R. No. L-24375 May 18, 1978 - TAN BENG v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27155 May 18, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27732 May 18, 1978 - ANGELES CHIQUILLO, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28454 May 18, 1978 - EMILIO APACHECHA, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29276 May 18, 1978 - TESTATE ESTATE OF FELIX J. DE GUZMAN v. CRISPINA DE GUZMAN-CARILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29466 May 18, 1978 - ABOITIZ AND CO., INC., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-34770 May 18, 1978 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40885 May 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL GARGOLES

  • G.R. No. L-44351 May 18, 1978 - HOECHST PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FRANCISCO TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-1768 May 19, 1978 - ANGELES G. DACANAY v. CONRADO B. LEONARDO, SR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28324-5 May 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL MARCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35093 May 19, 1978 - E.S. BALTAO & CO., INC. v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978 - SWEET LINE, INC. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978 - EMMA C. ONA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS

  • A.M. No. 1530-MJ May 30, 1978 - NENITA CASTAÑETO v. BUENAVENTURA S. NIDOY

  • G.R. No. L-32850 May 30, 1978 - ROGELIO LAFIGUERA, ET AL. v. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37162 May 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WARLITO C. PLATEROS

  • G.R. No. L-38375 May 30, 1978 - ALFONSA TIMBAS VDA. DE PALOPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29262 May 31, 1978 - SALVADOR BARENG v. SHINTOIST SHRINE & JAPANESE CHARITY BUREAU

  • G.R. No. L-30355 May 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UNION KAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31303-04 May 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37174 May 31, 1978 - LITTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-CCLU v. LITTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37697. May 31, 1978.

    SEGUNDO ABANDO v. CA

  • G.R. No. L-42713 May 31, 1978 - NORBERTA MARTILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43358 May 31, 1978 - PRESENTACION D. DELANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43811 May 31, 1978 - CAYETANO FRANCISCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44563 May 31, 1978 - GERONIMO REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47263 May 31, 1978 - HACIENDA DOLORES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47536 May 31, 1978 - WILLIAM H. QUASHA v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.