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. 129660   November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 129660. November 22, 2001.]

    BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GERMAN LEE, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), SSS ADMINISTRATOR RENATO VALENCIA and SSS REGIONAL MANAGER EDMOND GONZALES, Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    For review is the decision 1 dated February 28, 1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38472, which dismissed petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari. Petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 38472 to nullify two orders of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15, in Civil Case No. Ceb-6571, on the ground that said orders amended, modified, and altered the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment. The appellate court, however, found that said orders were issued only in consonance with its resolution, dated November 25, 1994, in CA-G.R. CV No. 35041 and neither altered nor amended the decretal portion of the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. Ceb-6571.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In 1979, petitioners obtained a housing loan from respondent Social Security System (SSS). The loan of P38,300 for a term of 15 years and payable in monthly amortizations, was split into two obligations bearing different interest rates to be paid simultaneously, thus: the first P30,000 would bear an interest of six percent (6%) per annum and the remaining P8,300 would be charged nine percent (9%) per annum. To secure the loan, petitioners executed a promissory note and mortgaged their conjugal lot to SSS. Instead of paying according to the monthly schedule, petitioners made advance payments in large amounts.

    In 1987, petitioners computed the payments they had made and determined that the loan had been paid in full. They submitted to SSS their detailed computation of the payments made with the corresponding receipts and asked for the release of the mortgage and the return of their Transfer Certificate of Title. Respondent SSS refused on the ground that petitioners’ computations were not in accordance with SSS rules and regulations and policy on priority of payments. SSS claimed that as per its records, the Jabans still owed it P6,006.14 as of May 1, 1987.

    Petitioners then initiated an action for release of mortgage with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City against SSS, docketed as Civil Case No. Ceb-6571.

    On December 21, 1989, the trial court resolved petitioners’ suit as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, finding the preponderance to be in favor of defendants judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action;

    2. Requiring the plaintiffs to pay the balance of their obligation in the sum of P6,367.62 up to December 1987, and such other amounts that may have fallen due in accordance with the Promissory Note signed by the plaintiffs in favor of defendants;

    3. Ordering the plaintiffs to pay to the defendants the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. No exemplary damages are awarded to the Defendants, otherwise it would be imposing a penalty on the right to litigate.

    SO ORDERED. 2

    Petitioners seasonably appealed the aforequoted judgment to the appellate court, which docketed their appeal as CA-G.R. CV No. 35041.

    On March 26, 1993, the Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. CV No. 35041 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses is deleted and set aside.

    SO ORDERED. 3

    Petitioners then elevated the controversy to this Court via an appeal by certiorari. On November 17, 1993, that appeal, docketed as G.R. No. 112132, was denied for failure of petitioners to comply with Supreme Court Circular Nos. 19-91 and 28-91. On February 21, 1994, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Their second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied with finality on May 18, 1994.

    On March 15, 1994, our resolution denying G.R. No. 112132 became final and executory, and duly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 4

    On March 22, 1994, petitioners moved for execution of judgment and release of the mortgage. They alleged inter alia that the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. Ceb-6571, as modified by the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 35041 only required them to pay the balance of their obligation in the sum of P6,367.62 up to December 1987 and such other amounts that may have fallen due in accordance with the promissory note they signed in favor of SSS.

    On March 24, 1995, the trial court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When this case was called, Atty. B. Jaban appeared for the movant, while Atty. Ruel del Valle appeared for the defendant-SSS. It appearing that the only question is the computation of the amount still due and owing from Atty. Jaban and the issue of the principal obligation: the fire insurance and mortgage redemption insurance — Atty. del Valle is hereby required to submit to this Court within 15 days from today a Manifestation as to whether the plaintiffs have already fully paid their principal obligations as covered and protected by the mortgage as to be the basis for the determination by this Court of whether the mortgage contract should now be discharged and released to: Atty. Jaban. Starting today, if the obligation has been fully paid, the SSS should discontinue charging interest on the principal obligation.

    IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

    Respondent SSS then filed its manifestation showing that petitioners’ housing loan was covered by mortgage redemption insurance (MRI), that petitioners’ unpaid account as of March 1, 1995 amounted to P15,083.21 and not P9,969.41 as alleged by petitioners and that considering that petitioners had paid the amount of P9,969.41, said amount was first applied to the fire insurance and MRI accounts and the balance of the unpaid amortizations in accordance with SSS rules and regulations. SSS then determined petitioners’ unpaid account after the payment of P9,969.41 to be P4,615.72 as of May 1, 1995.

    On July 3, 1995, the trial court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    This is acting on the Manifestation filed by Atty. Ruel B. del Valle dated June 23, 1995 in response to the Order of this court requiring defendant-SSS to show proof that the SSS Housing Loan of Spouses Bienvenido and Lydia Jaban in question was covered by a Mortgage Insurance, considering that there is no mention in resulting Contract of Mortgage signed by the parties. In one of the proofs attached, there appears a Real Estate Loan Payment Return, (underlined in the original) in the name of borrower: Atty. Bienvenido Jaban dated 6-7-82 and it reflects a payment of P200.00 for the Mortgage Redemption Insurance Payment by means of a BPI Check No. 207148 dated May 31, 1982 (See: Annex 2). Also the social Security System Insurance Subsidiary Ledger Card shows: Column MRI for 1986 to 1988 in the amount of P288.04 and 125.23, thereby showing that the mortgage contract and the resulting obligation of the Jaban spouses includes a mortgage redemption insurance or MRI insurance. And they cannot now deny this fact being an estoppel in pais.

    Wherefore, the court hereby rules that after Atty. Jaban pays the due amount on the mortgage insurance and other legitimate impositions stated in the contract, the mortgage may finally released and discharged by the SSS.

    Notify all concerned accordingly.

    IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

    Claiming that the trial court’s orders amended and altered the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 38472.

    On February 28, 1997, the appellate court disposed of CA-G.R. SP No. 38472 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Wherefore, the petition is hereby DENIED due course and DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED. 7

    Hence, the instant petition alleging the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR TO HAVE SANCTION THE LOWER COURT OR RESPONDENT RTC JUDGE LEE IN AMENDING AND MODIFYING AND FURTHER TO CHANGE THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF A FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION.

    II


    THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR AND SANCTIONING AND APPROVING, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT WITHIN PROVISIONS OF THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION, TO FURTHER ORDER PLAINTIFFS TO PAY FOR THE FIRE INSURANCE AND THEIR ADDITIONAL AMORTIZATION PAYMENT OF THE HOUSING LOAN WITH PENALTIES IMPOSED THEREIN AS THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS.

    III


    THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED AND COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR TO APPROVE AND SANCTION THE RESPONDENT LOWER COURT OR RTC JUDGE LEE IN NOT ORDERING THE RELEASE OF MORTGAGE WHEN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN SATISFIED.

    Despite Petitioner’s assigned errors, we find only one core issue: Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error in holding that the questioned orders of the RTC did not amend, alter, or modify the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Before us, petitioners vehemently insist that even the briefest look at the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. 6571, as modified by the appellate court’s judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 3541, clearly shows that all that they are required to pay the SSS is only "the balance of their obligation in the sum of P6,367.62 up to December 1987 and such other amounts fallen due in accordance with the promissory note signed by the plaintiffs in favor of defendants." Petitioners stress that the document mentioned in the judgment in Civil Case No. Ceb-6571 is the promissory note executed by them in favor of SSS. Nowhere is there mention of the mortgage contract or any other document pertaining to or related to their housing loan. Petitioners now state that said promissory note contains no mention nor promise on petitioners’ part to pay either fire insurance or MRI. Hence, in requiring them to pay said obligations, the trial court modified a decision which was already final and executory. Petitioner submit that under the doctrine of finality of judgment, as pronounced by this Court in several cases, a final and executory decision can no longer be amended or corrected. Hence, it was a grave error of law on the appellate court to sustain the trial court’s orders amending or altering a final and executory judgment.

    Respondent SSS avers, in turn, that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in issuing the said orders. According to said respondent, it was but proper for the appellate court to dismiss petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 38472. It adds that the questioned orders of the trial court neither amended nor altered the decretal portion of its judgment as modified by the Court of Appeals, but sought to clarify and quantify the amount still owed by petitioners to the SSS. Respondent points out that in affirming the trial court’s decision, the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 35041 did not provide for the amount to be paid by petitioners to the SSS. Instead, the amount due was to be computed by the trial court within the parameters defined by the appellate court. It was precisely with this aim of carrying out the appellate court’s mandate that the trial court issued the orders of March 24 and July 3, 1995. For without the determination of the exact amount due and payable, according to respondent, the decision of the trial court not be implemented or executed.

    We note that among the obligations which petitioners must settle with the SSS concern the MRI and fire insurance. These items appear to petitioners as constituting an amendment, modification, or alteration of the decision of the trial court in civil Case No. Ceb-6571, as affirmed with modification CA-G.R. CV No. 35041. Petitioners’ view, however, is not supported by the record. Petitioners appear to have overlooked the resolution dated November 25, 1994, of the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 35041, which was issued in response to their motion for clarification of the appellate court’s decision dated March 26, 1993. The pertinent portion of said resolution reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The judgment of this Court which held that the rules on application of payment under the Civil Code are not applicable to the loan contracted by appellant from the appellee and dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant having attained finality, the computation of the exact amount payable by the appellant is governed by the Rules and Regulations on loan payments . . . of the appellee SSS, which is in a better position to make a computation thereof. The ruling of the trial court, which was affirmed by this Court, that the appellant should pay the remaining balance and such other amount that may have fallen due refers to surcharges which may be impossible on the appellants’ balance, considering that under the promissory note interest due is compounded monthly. Only after full payment of the amount due may the appellant demand from the appellee release of the mortgage.

    WHEREFORE, the judgment is clarified accordingly.

    SO ORDERED. 8

    A judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. 9 The orders dated March 24 and July 3, 1995, of the trial court, which sought to give life to the dispositive portion of its decision should be read in consonance with the aforequoted resolution of the Court of Appeals. Note that while the resolution speaks of "computation of the exact amount payable . . . is governed by the rules and regulations on the loan payments of the appellee SSS," it nonetheless did not provide for an exact or definite amount, which petitioners herein should pay the SSS. Instead, it merely set the parameters by which the trial court would come up with the computation. It was precisely to determine this amount that the trial court conducted a hearing on the matter.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    As established at said hearing, under the pertinent SSS rules, among the amounts to be paid by housing loan borrowers are the MRI and fire insurance, apart from amortization, interest, and in case of default, penalties. Only after the hearing did the trial court issue its order of July 3, 1995, providing for a computation in accordance with the SSS rules and regulations on loan payments.

    As found by the appellate court, in ordering a computation of petitioners’ balance as determined by the pertinent SSS rules, the trial court did not amend, alter, or modify the decretal portion of its decision. Instead, the trial court merely clarified its decision so as to comply with the November 25, 1994, resolution of the Court of Appeals and at the same time enable its decision to be executed or implemented. Thus, the trial court was only acting pursuant to the said resolution of the appellate court. No error may therefore be attributed to the Court of appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38472, when it held that certiorari did not lie, since no grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess or jurisdiction was committed by the trial court when it tailored its orders to comply with the resolution of the appellate court.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38472 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 27-37. Penned by Ruben T. Reyes, J., with Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Bennie Adefuin dela Cruz, JJ., concurring.

    2. CA Rollo, p. 22.

    3. Id. at 28. Penned by Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, J., with Luis A. Javellana and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurring.

    4. Id. at 29.

    5. Id. at 40.

    6. Id. at 56

    7. Rollo, p. 36

    8. CA Rollo, p.88.

    9. Baluyot v. Guiao, G.R. o. 136294, 315 SCRA 396, 404 (1999).

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


    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