June 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > June 1982 Decisions >
G.R. Nos. 38515-16 June 19, 1982 - VICENTE G. ACABAN v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ET AL.
199 Phil. 586:
199 Phil. 586:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 38515-16. June 19, 1982.]
VICENTE G. ACABAN, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, CFI of Manila, Branch VIII, and B & B FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
Gaspar V. Tagalo for Petitioner.
Agustin O. Benitez for Private Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
In Civil Case No. 75138, the lower court rendered a decision ordering the defendants therein to pay to plaintiff certain sums of money. Upon motion filed by the prevailing party. the respondent Judge ordered the China Banking Corporation to hold any deposit of defendant B & B Forest Development Corporation intact and to disallow any withdrawal therefrom until further orders from the court. Two years after the rendition of the judgment, the defendant filed a complaint for the annulment of the aforesaid judgment on grounds of want of jurisdiction and denial of due process for the alleged failure to serve the summons upon it as defendant (Civil Case No. 86246). The complaint was dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was set aside and the decision in Civil Case No. 75138 was declared valid, legal, binding and executory. Pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals, the respondent Judge issued an order to enjoin the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138. Hence, this petition to annul the same and compel the respondent judge to order the sheriff to proceed with the garnishment of the defendant’s bank deposits.
During the pendency of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision dismissing Civil Case No. 86246. In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, the finality of the aforementioned judgment having rendered the same moot and academic.
During the pendency of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision dismissing Civil Case No. 86246. In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, the finality of the aforementioned judgment having rendered the same moot and academic.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS; DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — A petition to annul the order to enjoin the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138 and to compel the respondent Judge to order the sheriff to proceed with the garnishment of defendant’s bank deposits is to be dismissed where during the pendency thereof, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in Civil Case No. 86246 dismissing the complaint and declaring valid, binding and executory the decision in Civil Case No. 75138. The finality of said judgment renders the petition moot and academic as there is no useful and pragmatic purpose for this Court to resolve the issues raised.
AQUINO, J., concurring
REMEDIAL LAW; CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS; DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — A petition assailing an order to enjoin the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 75138 becomes moot and academic where during the pendency thereof, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 86246 which sought to annul the final and executory money judgment in Civil Case 75138. The order of injunction having no more leg to stand on, there is no more obstacle to the execution of the judgment in Civil Case 75138.
AQUINO, J., concurring
REMEDIAL LAW; CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS; DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — A petition assailing an order to enjoin the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 75138 becomes moot and academic where during the pendency thereof, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 86246 which sought to annul the final and executory money judgment in Civil Case 75138. The order of injunction having no more leg to stand on, there is no more obstacle to the execution of the judgment in Civil Case 75138.
D E C I S I O N
ESCOLIN, J.:
Petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul and set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, presided by Judge Wenceslao M. Ortega, which authorized the issuance of a writ of injunction restraining petitioner Vicente C. Acaban and the Sheriff of Manila from enforcing the writ of execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 75138, entitled "Vicente Acaban versus Bautista Logging Co., Inc., B & B Forest Development Corporation, and Mariano A. Bautista" ; and to compel the respondent judge to order the garnishment of the bank deposit of the respondent B & B Forest Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to simply as "B & B." chanrobles law library
It appears that on January 30, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 75138, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter, jointly and severally, to pay the former the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. the sum of P24,910.41, plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry date of thirty days from the respective dates of delivery of goods under the different invoices, Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N until fully paid;
b. the sum of P300.00 representing the cash amount advanced by plaintiff to defendants on February 13, 1968, Exh. O, plus interest thereon at 6% per annum from December 17, 1968, the date of filing of the complaint;
c. the sum of P6,300.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
d. the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library
Thereafter, petitioner Acaban, plaintiff therein, filed a motion seeking the garnishment of the bank deposit of "B & B" with the China Banking Corporation. Acting on this motion, the respondent judge ordered the bank’s cashier, Tan Lim Lion, "to inform the court within five days from receipt of this order whether or not there is a deposit in the China Banking Corporation of defendant B & B Forest Development Corporation, and if there is any deposit, to hold the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further order from this court."cralaw virtua1aw library
On February 21, 1972, or more than two years after the decision in Civil Case No. 75138 had been rendered, "B & B" filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 86246, for annulment of the aforesaid judgment on grounds of want of jurisdiction and denial of due process for alleged failure to serve the summons upon "B & B", as defendant in Civil Case No. 75138. 1 On Motion of "B & B", a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the respondent judge restraining Acaban and the Sheriff of Manila from enforcing the writ of execution previously issued in Civil Case No. 75138.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
After trial on the merits of Civil Case No. 86246, the respondent judge rendered a decision, dated March 6, 1974, dismissing the complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against defendant in this Civil Case No. 86246; and the writ of preliminary injunction issued in said case in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant is set aside and vacated;
b. Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant P2,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees plus double the costs; and
c. Declaring the decision of this court in Civil Case No. 75138 valid, legal, binding, final and executory.
SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library
The above judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeals. But prior to the perfection of the appeal, or on March 12, 1974, Acaban filed a "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment" in Civil Case No. 75138, 2 while "B & B" filed an "Urgent Motion to Restore or Grant Injunction Pending Appeal" of Civil Case No. 86246. 3
On March 27, 1974, the respondent judge issued the questioned order 4 which granted the writ of injunction restraining the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 75138.
Hence, the instant petition to annul the said order and to compel the respondent judge to order the sheriff to proceed with the garnishment of "B & B’s bank deposit. The petition poses the following issues:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
(1) Is a judgment debtor, like respondent "B & B", entitled to an injunctive writ enjoining the execution of a final judgment?
(2) Did respondent judge gravely abuse his discretion in denying petitioner’s "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment" ?
There is no useful and pragmatic purpose for this Court to resolve these issues, for the reason that the decision in Civil Case No. 86246, which had been appealed by "B & B" to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed by the said court on July 20, 1979. The finality of said judgment renders the instant petition moot and academic.
ACCORDINGLY, this petition is hereby dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.
AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I concur. Judge Ortega in Civil Case No. 86246 dismissed on March 6, 1974 the action of B & B Forest Development Corporation to annul the final and executory money judgment in Civil Case No. 75138 which was rendered by Judge Manuel P. Barcelona on January 20, 1970 in favor of Vicente Acaban and against Bautista Logging Co., Inc., Mariano A. Bautista and B & B Forest Development Corporation. Judge Ortega declared the said judgment valid and binding.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals from Judge Ortega’s decision, he issued an order to enjoin the execution of Judge Barcelona’s judgment in Civil Case No. 75138.
That order of injunction was assailed in this petition for certiorari and mandamus which was filed on April 17, 1974. During the pendency of this case, the Court of Appeals in its decision of July 20, 1979 affirmed Judge Ortega’s decision dismissing Civil Case No. 86246.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Hence, the instant case became moot and academic. Judge Ortega’s order of injunction has no more leg to stand on. There is no obstacle to the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138.
It appears that on January 30, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 75138, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter, jointly and severally, to pay the former the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. the sum of P24,910.41, plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry date of thirty days from the respective dates of delivery of goods under the different invoices, Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N until fully paid;
b. the sum of P300.00 representing the cash amount advanced by plaintiff to defendants on February 13, 1968, Exh. O, plus interest thereon at 6% per annum from December 17, 1968, the date of filing of the complaint;
c. the sum of P6,300.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
d. the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library
Thereafter, petitioner Acaban, plaintiff therein, filed a motion seeking the garnishment of the bank deposit of "B & B" with the China Banking Corporation. Acting on this motion, the respondent judge ordered the bank’s cashier, Tan Lim Lion, "to inform the court within five days from receipt of this order whether or not there is a deposit in the China Banking Corporation of defendant B & B Forest Development Corporation, and if there is any deposit, to hold the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further order from this court."cralaw virtua1aw library
On February 21, 1972, or more than two years after the decision in Civil Case No. 75138 had been rendered, "B & B" filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 86246, for annulment of the aforesaid judgment on grounds of want of jurisdiction and denial of due process for alleged failure to serve the summons upon "B & B", as defendant in Civil Case No. 75138. 1 On Motion of "B & B", a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the respondent judge restraining Acaban and the Sheriff of Manila from enforcing the writ of execution previously issued in Civil Case No. 75138.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
After trial on the merits of Civil Case No. 86246, the respondent judge rendered a decision, dated March 6, 1974, dismissing the complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against defendant in this Civil Case No. 86246; and the writ of preliminary injunction issued in said case in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant is set aside and vacated;
b. Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant P2,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees plus double the costs; and
c. Declaring the decision of this court in Civil Case No. 75138 valid, legal, binding, final and executory.
SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library
The above judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeals. But prior to the perfection of the appeal, or on March 12, 1974, Acaban filed a "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment" in Civil Case No. 75138, 2 while "B & B" filed an "Urgent Motion to Restore or Grant Injunction Pending Appeal" of Civil Case No. 86246. 3
On March 27, 1974, the respondent judge issued the questioned order 4 which granted the writ of injunction restraining the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 75138.
Hence, the instant petition to annul the said order and to compel the respondent judge to order the sheriff to proceed with the garnishment of "B & B’s bank deposit. The petition poses the following issues:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
(1) Is a judgment debtor, like respondent "B & B", entitled to an injunctive writ enjoining the execution of a final judgment?
(2) Did respondent judge gravely abuse his discretion in denying petitioner’s "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment" ?
There is no useful and pragmatic purpose for this Court to resolve these issues, for the reason that the decision in Civil Case No. 86246, which had been appealed by "B & B" to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed by the said court on July 20, 1979. The finality of said judgment renders the instant petition moot and academic.
ACCORDINGLY, this petition is hereby dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I concur. Judge Ortega in Civil Case No. 86246 dismissed on March 6, 1974 the action of B & B Forest Development Corporation to annul the final and executory money judgment in Civil Case No. 75138 which was rendered by Judge Manuel P. Barcelona on January 20, 1970 in favor of Vicente Acaban and against Bautista Logging Co., Inc., Mariano A. Bautista and B & B Forest Development Corporation. Judge Ortega declared the said judgment valid and binding.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals from Judge Ortega’s decision, he issued an order to enjoin the execution of Judge Barcelona’s judgment in Civil Case No. 75138.
That order of injunction was assailed in this petition for certiorari and mandamus which was filed on April 17, 1974. During the pendency of this case, the Court of Appeals in its decision of July 20, 1979 affirmed Judge Ortega’s decision dismissing Civil Case No. 86246.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Hence, the instant case became moot and academic. Judge Ortega’s order of injunction has no more leg to stand on. There is no obstacle to the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138.
Endnotes:
1. p. 95, rollo.
2. p. 30, rollo.
3. pp. 32-35, rollo.
4. p. 36, rollo.
