ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 109648   November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 109648. November 22, 2001.]

    PH CREDIT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    When there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case


    Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 1 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 28, 1992 Decision 2 and the April 6, 1993 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP Nos. 23324 and 25714. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING: a) CA-G.R. SP No 23324, for being moot and academic, and b) CA-G.R. SP No. 25714, for lack of merit." 4

    The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

    The Facts


    The facts of the case are summarized by the Court of Appeals in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "These two cases have been consolidated because they involve the same parties and/or related questions of [f]act and/or law.

    x       x       x


    "I. CA-G.R. SP NO. 23324

    "PH Credit Corp., filed a case against Pacific Lloyd Corp., Carlos Farrales, Thomas H. Van Sebille and Federico C. Lim, for [a] sum of money. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 83-17751 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Manila. After service of summons upon the defendants, they failed to file their answer within the reglementary period, hence they were declared in default. PH Credit Corp., was then allowed to present its evidence ex-parte.

    "On January 31, 1984, a decision was rendered, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff PH Credit Corporation and against defendants Pacific Lloyd Corporation, Thomas H. Van Sebille, Carlos M. Farrales, and Federico C. Lim, ordering the latter to pay the former, the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘A) The sum of P118,814.49 with interest of 18% per annum, starting December 20, 1982 until fully paid;

    ‘B) Surcharge of 16% per annum from December 20, 1982;

    ‘C) Penalty Charge of 2% per month from December 20, 1982, computed on interest and principal compounded;

    ‘D) Attorney’s fees in an amount equivalent to 25% of the total sum due; and

    ‘E) Costs of suit.

    ‘SO ORDERED.’

    "After the aforesaid decision has become final and executory, a Writ of Execution was issued and consequently implemented by the assigned Deputy Sheriff. Personal and real properties of defendant Carlos M. Farrales were levied and sold at public auction wherein PH Credit Corp. was the highest bidder. The personal properties were sold on August 2, 1984 at P18,900.00 while the real properties were sold on June 21, 1989 for P1,294,726.00.

    "On July 27, 1990, a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed and on October 12, 1990, the same was granted. The writ of possession itself was issued on October 26, 1990. Said order and writ of possession are now the subject of this petition.

    "Petitioner claims that she, as a third-party claimant with the court below, filed an ‘Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Suspend the Order dated October 12, 1990’, but without acting there[on], respondent Judge issued the writ of possession on October 26, 1990. She claims that the actuations of respondent Judge was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

    "We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the issue raised in view of the supervening event which had rendered the same moot and academic.

    "It appears that on January 31, 1991, respondent Judge issued an order considering the assailed Order dated October 12, 1990 as well as the writ of possession issued on October 26, 1990 as ‘of no force and effect.’

    "The purpose of the petition is precisely to have the aforesaid order and writ of possession declared null and void, but the same had already been declared ‘of no force and effect’ by the respondent Judge. It is a well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question or abstract proposition nor express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.

    "II. CA-G.R. SP NO. 25714

    "Petitioner claims that the respondent Judge’s Order dated January 31, 1991 was tainted with grave abuse of discretion based on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Respondent Judge refused to consider as waived private respondent’s objection that his obligation in the January 31, 1984 decision was merely joint and not solidary with the defendants therein. According to petitioner, private respondent assailed the levy on execution twice in 1984 and once in 1985 but not once did the latter even mention therein that his obligation was joint for failure of the dispositive portion of the decision to indicate that it was solidary. Thus, private respondent must be deemed to have waived that objection, petitioner concludes.

    "2. The redemption period after the auction sale of the properties had long lapsed so much [so] that the purchaser therein became the absolute owner thereof. Thus, respondent Judge allegedly abused his discretion in setting aside the auction sale after the redemption period had expired.

    "3. Respondent Judge erred in applying the presumption of a joint obligation in the face of the conclusion of fact and law contained in the decision showing that the obligation is solidary." 5 (Citations omitted)

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals


    The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling declaring null and void (a) the auction sale of Respondent Ferrales’ real property and (b) the Writ of Possession issued in consequence thereof. It held that, pursuant to the January 31, 1984 Decision of the trial court, the liability of Farrales was merely joint and not solidary. Consequently, there was no legal basis for levying and selling Farrales’ real and personal properties in order to satisfy the whole obligation.

    Hence, this Petition. 6

    The Issues


    In its Memorandum, 7 petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    Whether or not the Court of Appeals disregarded the basic policy of avoiding multiplicity of motions.

    "II


    Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it disregarded the body of the decision and concluded that the obligation was merely a joint obligation due to the failure of the dispositive portion of the decision dated 31 January 1984 to state that the obligation was joint and solidary.

    "III


    Whether or not the Court of Appeals disregarded the policy of upholding executions." 8

    The Courts Ruling

    The Petition is devoid of merit.

    First Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Omnibus Motion Rule

    Petitioner contends that because private respondent did not question the joint and solidary nature of his liability in his (a) Motion to Quash Levy Execution 9 dated August 23, 1984, (b) Urgent Motion to Order Sheriff to Suspend Sale on Execution 10 dated December 3, 1984, and (c) Motion to Declare Certificate of Sale Null and Void 11 dated January 9, 1985, he cannot now raise it as an objection. Petitioner argues that the "Omnibus Motion Rule" bars private respondent’s belated objection. We do not agree.

    The Omnibus Motion Rule is found in Section 8 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Subject to the provisions of section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. (8a)"

    As an aid to the proper understanding of this case, we should at the outset point out that the objections of private respondent contained in his Omnibus Motion 12 dated November 5, 1990 were directed at the proceedings and the orders issued after the auction sale of his real property covered by TCT No. 82531. In his Omnibus Motion, he asked for the recall and quashal of the Writ of Possession issued on October 26, 1990; the annulment of the June 21, 1989 auction sale of the said real property and the recomputation of his liability to petitioner.

    However, the three (3) Motions that petitioner referred to above were clearly directed against the execution of private respondent’s personal properties. A perusal of these Motions will show that at the time, his objections were directed at the acts of execution against his personal properties.

    In his Motion to Quash Levy Execution, 13 private respondent pointed to the properties of herein moving defendant . . . located at his residence at No. 17, Bunker Hill St., New Manila, Quezon City, per the Notice of Levy and Sale," 14 and asked for the quashal and setting aside of such Notice. He was thus referring to the levy on his personal properties. By the same token, in his Urgent Motion to Order Sheriff to Suspend Sale on Execution, 15 he referred to a copy of a sheriff’s notice of sale dated November 22, 1984," 16 which in turn alluded to the sale of his levied personal properties. Similarly, in his Motion to Declare Certificate of Sale Null and Void, 17 he once again assailed the sale at public auction of his personal properties. It is thus clear that up to that point, he was questioning the levy and sale of his personal properties. He could not have known at the time that he would be made to answer for the entire liability, which he and his co-respondents were adjudged to pay petitioner by reason of the trial court’s judgment of January 31, 1984.

    After private respondent realized that he was being made to answer on the entire liability as a solidary debtor, he filed his Omnibus Motion questioning the Writ of Possession and all incident orders and proceedings relevant thereto. This realization dawned on him, because his real property was levied and sold despite the previous sale of his personal property. Only at this point was he in a position to assert his objections to the auction sale of his real property and to put up the defense of joint liability among all the respondents.

    The Rules of Court requires that all available objections to a judgment or proceeding must be set up in an Omnibus Motion assailing it; otherwise, they are deemed waived. In the case at bar, the objection of private respondent to his solidary liability became available to him, only after his real property was sold at public auction. At the time his personal properties were levied and sold, it was not evident to him that he was being held solely liable for the monetary judgment rendered against him and his co-respondents. That was why his objections then did not include those he asserted when his solidary liability became evident.

    Prior to his Omnibus Motion, he was not yet being made to pay for the entire obligation. Thus, his objection to his being made solidarily liable with the other respondents was not yet available to him at the time he filed the Motions referred to by petitioner. Not being available, these objections could not have been deemed waived when he filed his three earlier Motions, which pertained to matters different from those covered by his Omnibus Motion;

    True, the Omnibus Motion Rule requires the movant to raise all available exceptions in a single opportunity to avoid multiple piecemeal objections. 18 But to apply that statutory norm, the objections must have been available to the party at the time the Motion was filed.

    Second Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Basis of Private Respondent’s Liability

    Petitioner argues that the CA erred in disregarding the text of the January 31, 1984 Decision of the trial court. In concluding that the obligation was merely joint, the CA was allegedly mistaken in relying on the failure of the dispositive portion of the Decision to state that the obligation was solidary.

    We are not impressed. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors. On the other hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a proportionate part of the credit from each debtor. 19 The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be positively and clearly expressed. 20 A liability is solidary "only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires." 21 Article 1207 of the Civil Code explains the nature of solidary obligations in this wise.

    "ARTICLE 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the dispositive portion of the January 31, 1984 Decision of the trial court, the word solidary neither appears nor can it be inferred therefrom. The fallo merely stated that the following respondents were liable: Pacific Lloyd Corporation, Thomas H. Van Sebille, Carlos M. Farrales and Federico C. Lim. Under the circumstances, the liability is joint, as provided by the Civil Code, which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ARTICLE 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers[,] the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors . . ." 22

    We should stress that respondent’s obligation is based on the judgment rendered by the trial court. The dispositive portion or the fallo is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution. The other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi for the disposition. Where there is a conflict between the dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing 23 Hence the execution must conform with that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.

    Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals improper and incorrectly disregarded the body of the trial court’s Decision, which clearly stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "To support the Promissory Note, a Continuing Suretyship Agreement was executed by the defendants, Federico C. Lim, Carlos M. Farrales and Thomas H. Van Sebille, in favor of the plaintiff corporation, to the effect that if Pacific Lloyd Corporation cannot pay the amount loaned by plaintiff to said corporation, then Federico C. Lim, Carlos M. Farrales and Thomas H. Van Sebille will hold themselves jointly and severally together with defendant Pacific Lloyd Corporation to answer for the payment of said obligation." 24

    As early as 1934 in Oriental Commercial Co. v. Abeto and Mabanag, 25 this Court has already answered such argument in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is of no consequence that, under the written contract of suretyship executed by the parties, the obligation contracted by the sureties was joint and several in character. The final judgment, which superseded the action brought for the enforcement of said contract, declared the obligation to be merely joint, and the same cannot be executed otherwise." 26

    The same reasoning was recently adopted by this Court in Industrial Management International Development Corp. v. NLRC, 27 promulgated on May 11, 2000.

    Doctrinally, the basis of execution is the January 31, 1984 Decision rendered by the trial court, not the "written contract of suretyship" executed by the parties. As correctly observed by the trial judge:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . [W]hat was stated in the body of the decision of January 31, 1984 [was] only part of the narration of facts made by the Judge[,] and the dispositive portion is to prevail." 28

    The only exception when the body of a decision prevails over the fallo is when the inevitable conclusion from the former is that there was a glaring error in the latter, in which case the body of the decision will prevail. 29 In this instance, there was no clear declaration in the body of the January 31, 1984 Decision to warrant a conclusion that there was an error in the fallo. Nowhere in the former can we find a definite declaration of the trial court that, indeed, respondent’s liability was solidary. If petitioner had doubted this point, it should have filed a motion for reconsideration before the finality of the Decision of the trial court.

    Third Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The Policy of Upholding Executions

    Petitioner argues "that the issue of whether or not the judgment debt should be construed as joint or solidary can only affect the determination of the existence or absence of an excess in the proceeds of the sale." 30 He further maintains that private respondent’s interests are protected anyway even if all his properties are sold, because "any excess in the proceeds of the sale over the judgment and accruing costs must be delivered to the judgment debtor." 31

    We cannot accept these arguments. What can be sold on execution is limited by the Rules of Court, as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he (sheriff) must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees." 32

    A writ of execution is void when issued for a sum greater than that which is warranted by the judgment or for the original amount it states despite partial payment thereof. The exact amount due cannot be left to the determination of the sheriff. 33

    Petitioner finally insists that it is "futile for private respondent to contest the sale in execution conducted in the case at bar because of the general policy of the law to sustain execution sales." 34

    Simple logic dictates that a general policy to sustain execution sales does not guarantee that they will be upheld at every instance. Petitioner itself quotes grounds for setting aside such sales: a resulting injury or prejudice, fraud, mistake or irregularity. 35

    Being made to pay for an obligation in its entirety when one’s liability is merely for a portion is a sufficient ground to contest an execution sale. It would be the height of inequity if we allow judgment obligors to shoulder entire monetary judgments when their legal liabilities are limited only to their proportionate shares in the entire obligation.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. This was one of the low-numbered cases redistributed to justices who had no backlog in their dockets, pursuant to the Court’s "Zero Backlog" project under AM No. 00-9-03 SC, February 27, 2001.

    2. Rollo, pp. 37-44; penned by Justice Regina G. Ordoñez-Benitez, with the concurrence of Justices Gloria C. Paras (Division chairman) and Eduardo G. Montenegro (member).

    3. Rollo, p. 45.

    4. CA Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 43.

    5. CA Decision, pp. 1-5; rollo, pp. 37-41.

    6. In a Resolution, dated November 22, 1999, the Court required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice. This was sent through registered mail to all the parties. Petitioner, through counsel, submitted its Memorandum on February 9, 2000. This was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated April 15, 2000. On July 3, 2000, the Court resolved to require respondent’s counsel, Atty. Anthony Jay Consunji, to (a) show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and (b) comply with the Court’s Resolution for him to submit respondent’s Memorandum — both within ten (10) days from notice thereof. This Court Resolution was again sent-to respondent through registered mail, but was returned unserved with the annotation "RTS ADD. MOVED OUT LEFT NO FORWARDING ADDRESS." On November 22, 2000, the Court required petitioner to submit to the Court the correct and present address of counsel for private respondent within ten days from notice. Petitioner then manifested to the Court on January 31, 2001 that it had no knowledge of the current address of counsel for private respondent and moved the latter’s right to submit his memorandum be deemed waived. Under the premises and to avoid further delay, the Court deemed the Comment of private respondent as his Memorandum.

    7. Rollo, pp. 325-343.

    8. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 8; rollo, p. 332.

    9. Rollo, p. 82.

    10. Rollo, p. 86.

    11. Rollo, p. 95.

    12. Supra, note 8.

    13. Supra, note 12.

    14. Ibid.

    15. Supra, note 13.

    16. Records, p. 116.

    17. Supra, note 14.

    18. Manacop v. CA, 215 SCRA 773, November 13, 1992.

    19. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991 ed., p. 217.

    20. Smith, Bell & Co., Inc. v. CA, 267 SCRA 530, February 6, 1997.

    21. Inciong, Jr. v. CA, 257 SCRA 578, June 26, 1996.

    22. Article 1208, Civil Code.

    23. Magat v. Judge Pimentel Jr., AM No. RTJ-00-1531, November 28, 2000; Olac v. CA, 213 SCRA 321, September 2, 1992.

    24. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 12, rollo, p. 336.

    25. 60 Phil 723, October 10, 1934.

    26. Ibid., p. 728.

    27. GR No. 101723, May 11, 2000.

    28. RTC Decision dated January 31, 1991, p. 4; rollo, p. 71.

    29. Rosales v. CA, GR No. 137566, February 28, 2001.

    30. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 15; rollo, p. 339.

    31. Ibid.

    32. Rule 39, 9(b), 1997 Rules of Court.

    33. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 1997 ed., p. 426, citing Windor Steel Mfg Co., Inc. v. CA, 102 SCRA 275, January 27, 1981.

    34. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 15; rollo, p. 339.

    35. Ibid.

    G.R. No. 109648   November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED