Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > January 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988 - TAN HANG v. ANSBERTO PAREDES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-73627. January 29, 1988.]

TAN HANG, doing business under the name and style of PARAÑAQUE LUMBER, Petitioner, v. HON. ANSBERTO PAREDES, as Judge RTC of Makati, M.M. Branch CXL and L.O. YARI-SANTOS, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT NOT TO BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — We have always been consistent in Our ruling that generally the findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case.

2. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT; NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 22 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 RENDERS JUDGMENT FINAL AND EXECUTORY. — Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on October 10, 1985 in lieu of a petition for review as mandated in Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Perfection of an appeal or filing of petition for review within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory and it becomes the ministerial duty of the Court to order execution of judgment (Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 49)."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SATISFACTION OF WRIT OF EXECUTION BARS PETITION FOR REVIEW. — Petitioner, thru counsel, in his Comment (p. 33, Rollo) dated January 10, 1987 admitted payment by him of the judgment award in the amount of P7,000.00 to private respondent during the pendency of the petition. This satisfaction of the writ of execution operates as a bar to the present petition.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Antecedent facts reveal that an action for a sum of money was originally filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch LXXVII, docketed as Civil Case No. 6053. After trial on the merits, decision 1 was rendered dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff therein (now, petitioner) and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the defendant (herein, private respondent).

Not satisfied with the judgment of the lower court, plaintiff appealed to the Regional Trial Court which rendered its decision 2 affirming in toto the assailed judgment. Instead of filing any motion for reconsideration, plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal with the Regional Trial Court on October 10, 1985.

Ruling that a petition for review is the proper remedy, the Regional Trial Court in its Order on October 17, 1985, dismissed the Notice on Appeal and directed the remanding of the entire records of the case to the trial court for proper disposition.chanrobles law library

Plaintiff then filed a Petition for Review with the Intermediate Appellate Court but the same was dismissed by the resolution 3 (Annex "A") of said court promulgated on November 18, 1985. A motion for reconsideration of the same was likewise denied in its resolution promulgated January 24, 1986 (Annex "B"). Hence this petition, seeking the reversal of the aforementioned rulings of the appellate court.

The Petition does not deserve Our consideration. The findings of fact of the trial court, the Regional Trial Court and the Intermediate Appellate Court as embodied in their decisions sustained the position of private respondent that he has fully paid the amount of his total obligations to the petitioner. A cursory reading of these rulings shows that they are fully substantiated by the evidence presented. We have always been consistent in Our ruling that generally the findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Furthermore, the decision of the trial court is already final and executory. As stated earlier, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on October 10, 1985 in lieu of a petition for review as mandated in Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. In affirming the decision of the regional trial court and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent appellate court laid down the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is fundamental that the period to perfect an appeal (sic) a decision and final order is fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from.

"The facts obtaining in this case show that petitioner filed this petition out of time. For he received a copy of the assailed decision on September 23, 1985. Considering that he did not file any motion for reconsideration, he has, therefore, up to October 8, 1985 within which to file a petition for review. A mistake, however, was committed by counsel for petitioner when he filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review. This did not toll the running of the period to file a petition for review which inevitably lapsed or expired. It is settled in this jurisdiction that the client is bound by the acts even mistakes of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique (Isaac v. Mendoza, 89 Phil. 299).

"Moreover, perfection of an appeal or filing of petition for review within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory and it becomes the ministerial duty of the Court to order execution of judgment (Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 49)." (Rollo, p. 15)

Noteworthy is the fact that during the pendency of the petition at bar, in the absence of any restraining order, private respondent, alleging that the assailed decision has long been final and executory, applied for execution before the lower court and obtained a Writ of Execution. Petitioner, thru counsel, in his Comment (p. 33, Rollo) dated January 10, 1987 admitted payment by him of the judgment award in the amount of P7,000.00 to private respondent during the pendency of the petition. This satisfaction of the writ of execution operates as a bar to the present petition.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The names of the Ponentes of said decisions are not indicated in the records.

2. The names of the Ponentes of said decisions are not indicated in the records.

3. Penned by Justice Alfredo M. Lazaro, concurred in by Justices Jose A. R. Melo and Fidel P. Purisima.




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






January-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-72964 January 7, 1988 - FILOMENO URBANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78936 January 7, 1988 - VILLA RHECAR BUS v. FRUCTUOUSO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-70193-96 January 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO C. GALLO

  • G.R. Nos. L-42956-57 January 12, 1988 - A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43714 January 15, 1988 - FELIX GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49396 January 15, 1988 - JUAN A. GOCHANGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67970 January 15, 1988 - JOSE ABROGAR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68303 January 15, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72400 January 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO D. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75740 January 15, 1988 - CITYTRUST FINANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76233 January 15, 1988 - ZAYDA BISCOCHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-77502 January 15, 1988 - EMILIA B. SANTIAGO v. PIONEER SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. 1974 January 15, 1988 - ZOILO E. CADELINA v. GENOVEVO Q. MANHILOT

  • G.R. No. L-56431 January 19, 1988 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43445 January 20, 1988 - EUFEMIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BARROGA, ET AL. v. ANGEL ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63575 January 20, 1988 - ROSA GICANO, ET AL. v. ROSA GEGATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71855 January 20, 1988 - RIZALITO VELUNTA v. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATHANIEL M. GROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74279 & 74801-03 January 20, 1988 - MAXIMO ROXAS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74655 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO R. TARUC

  • G.R. No. L-74917 January 20, 1988 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78131 January 20, 1988 - EDUARDO TANCINCO, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37674 January 21, 1988 - LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-77107-08 January 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO DATAHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27677-8-9 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32749 January 22, 1988 - SABAS H. HOMENA, ET AL. v. DIMAS CASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34893 January 22, 1988 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39019 January 22, 1988 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46373 January 22, 1988 - YAP PENG CHONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46877 January 22, 1988 - LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68969 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. USMAN A. HASSAN

  • A.M. No. 265-MJ January 22, 1988 - LEONARDO B. BABATIO v. JOSE Z. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988 - PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69591 January 25, 1988 - ALICIA DE SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71875-76 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO C. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71939 January 25, 1988 - ELIGIO T. LEYVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73461 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR MASANGKAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75575 January 25, 1988 - ROGELIO BUCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80007 January 25, 1988 - CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49046 January 26, 1988 - SATURNO A. VICTORIA v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 - DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37783 January 28, 1988 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56960 January 28, 1988 - ELISEA G. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68741 January 28, 1988 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68989 January 28, 1988 - ANDREA CORDOVA VDA. DE GUTIERREZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73584 January 28, 1988 - LEONARDO FAMISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74187 January 28, 1988 - STANFORD MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75039 January 28, 1988 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76668 January 28, 1988 - DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77970 January 28, 1988 - AMBRAQUE INT’L. PLACEMENT & SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41154 January 29, 1988 - SILVERIO VERAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44330 January 29, 1988 - JULITA T. VDA. DE SEVERO, ET AL. v. LUNINGNING FELICIANO GO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988 - RUSTICO ADILLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46484 January 29, 1988 - LEONARDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47574 January 29, 1988 - FILIPINAS FABRICATORS & SALES INC., ET AL. v. CELSO L. MAGSINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48011 January 29, 1988 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50141 January 29, 1988 - BEAUTIFONT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51352 January 29, 1988 - VERDANT ACRES, INC. v. PONCIANO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-54500 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO BATAC

  • G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. L-67706 January 29, 1988 - ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS v. ANASTACIO MAGADAN

  • G.R. No. L-67813 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. TUNDAY

  • G.R. No. L-68331 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SANTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. ESCOBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988 - LILIA Y. GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69757-58 January 29, 1988 - CIRCA NILA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SALVADOR J. BAYLEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70484 January 29, 1988 - ROMAN C. TUASON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71091 January 29, 1988 - HENRY GALUBA, v. ALFREDO LAURETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72096 January 29, 1988 - JOHN CLEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72126 January 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72443 January 29, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AIR INDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72981 January 29, 1988 - FRANCISCA DE LA CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73604 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROUBEN H. CORRAL

  • G.R. No. L-73605 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO REUNIR

  • G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988 - TAN HANG v. ANSBERTO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74345 January 29, 1988 - FAR CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74369 January 29, 1988 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75268 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN C. MELGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75577 January 29, 1988 - PIO L. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77735 January 29, 1988 - WILFREDO VERDEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78973 January 29, 1988 - MAMINTA M. RADIA v. REVIEW COMMITTEE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 17, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80718 January 29, 1988 - FELISA P. DE ROY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2409 January 29, 1988 - MANUEL Y. MACIAS v. BENJAMIN B. MALIG