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. 141602   November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 141602. November 22, 2001.]

    PACSPORTS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC., Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


    Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52666, "Niccolo Sports, Inc. v. Hon. Manuel D. Victorino and Pacsports Phils., Inc." promulgated on December 6, 1999 and January 17, 2000.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Pacsports Phils., Inc. (PPI), Petitioner, is the exclusive distributor in the Philippines of sports products manufactured by Bridgestone Sports Company of Japan and Cross Creek International of the United States.

    On April 28, 1998, petitioner PPI and Niccolo Sports, Inc. (NSI), respondent, entered into two (2) separate Exclusive Retail Agreements by virtue of which petitioner supplied respondent, on consignment basis, assorted Bridgestone and Cross Creek golf products to be sold by the latter in its outlet situated at the Second Level, Shangri-La Plaza Shopping Mall, Edsa corner Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City. The agreements contain, among others, the following similarly worded stipulations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "8. PAYMENTS

    a) NSI shall remit full payment, in Cash or Check, the Outlet’s Gross Sales for the Month less NSI’s margin on or before fifteen (15) days of the following month. Late Payments shall have the prior approval of PPI;

    b) The supply of all the products in the Retail Outlet is on a Consignment basis.

    x       x       x


    "11. TERM

    This Agreement shall take effect from the Commencement Date and shall continue to be enforced for a period of three (3) years and shall be automatically renewed by mutual written agreement.

    x       x       x


    "12. TERMINATION

    a) PPI shall have the right at any time to terminate this Agreement and repossess unpaid stock and display materials forthwith upon the occurrence of any of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    If NSI is in material breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall have failed to remedy such breach within sixty (60) days after being requested to do so by PPI; or

    x       x       x


    b) NSI shall have the right at any time to terminate this Agreement and shall be entitled to the reimbursement of all expenses during the operations of the Retail Outlet, including construction and/or renovation forthwith upon the occurrence of any of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    If PPI is in material breach of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall have failed to remedy such breach within (60) days after being requested to do so by NSI; or

    x       x       x"

    Petitioner PPI claims that after months of operation, respondent’s obligations to it amounted to about P1.5 Million. Despite demand, respondent failed to pay and eventually, it pre-terminated the contracts. This prompted petitioner to file, on January 28, 1999, with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 141, Makati City, Civil Case No. 99-221 for damages with application for a writ of replevin against respondent alleging, inter alia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "4.04. On 26 January 1999, without any legal nor contractual basis, NSI unilaterally terminated the Agreements (Annexes ‘B’ and ‘C’) effective immediately. Hereto attached and made integral part hereof as Annex "D" is a copy of NSI notice of termination.

    "4.05. As a lame excuse for such unilateral termination, NSI cited supposed contractual violations committed by Pacsports — which, even if hypothetically admitted, do not constitute the ‘material breach’ contemplated in the Agreements (Annexes ‘B’ and ‘C’).

    "4.06. Worse, despite actual knowledge that the subject properties are merely on consignment basis, NSI unjustly detained them and refused to allow Pacsports to retrieve the unsold inventory unless Pacsports pays the amount of P12,442,500.00 — a condition which cannot be read in any of the provision of the Agreements (Annexes ‘B’ and ‘C’) nor in any statutory or case law.

    "4.07. To insure that Pacsports will not be able to retrieve its unsold inventory, NSI instructed the Shangri-La management not to allow the removal of any of merchandise from the mall premises without its written authorizations. A security guard was likewise deployed by NSI for such purpose. In this regard, attached hereto as Annex ‘E’ is a copy of NSI letter-instruction."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On the same day, the Makati RTC issued an order granting petitioner’s application for a writ of replevin. However, petitioner did not pursue the implementation of this writ because respondent concealed the golf equipment to be seized. Instead, on February 26, 1999, petitioner applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to compel respondent to turn over to petitioner the golf equipment and sales proceeds amounting to P1,186,468.65.

    For its part, respondent NSI, on February 16, 1999, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 91, Quezon City, Civil Case No. Q-99-36797 for "Breach and Confirmation of Termination of Contracts and Damages" against petitioner. The complaint alleges, among others, that:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    x       x       x


    "9. In flagrant breach, however, of the agreements and with incipient deceit and evident bad faith, defendant, on four (4) occasions, knowingly, deliberately and wantonly intercepted potential customers of plaintiff for some of the products, thereafter surreptitiously pursued them and closed for itself the sales for the particular products sought. In three (3) of these four (4) incidents defendants brazenly resorted to underselling to plaintiff’s undue damage and prejudice;

    x       x       x


    "10. The fourth incident being the last straw as it were, plaintiff forthwith sent defendant a second letter dated 25 January 1999 which defendant received again through its General Manager, Mr. Rafael Mapua recalling the above-narrated incidents of blatant usurpation of potential customers of plaintiff and fraudulently underselling it in material breach of the agreements; giving notice of the termination of the agreements effective immediately, conformably to paragraph 12 (b) thereof; as well as offering three (3) options to defendant for the amicable settlement of the matter. A copy of this letter-complaint cum notice of termination is attached hereto as Annex ‘E’.

    "14. Hence, plaintiff was constrained as it was to bring the instant complaint. During the interim, plaintiff will continue to retain in pledge and withhold the remittance to defendant of its portion of the proceeds of the sales for the period December 01, 1998 to February 14, 1999 in the amount of P1,305,865.94 and the return of the remaining inventory of the products defendants had consigned to it, plaintiff being authorized to do so as defendant’s commission agent under and by virtue of Articles 1912, 1913 and 1914 of the Civil Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On January 29, 1999, respondent NSI, citing the pendency of the Quezon City case, filed with the Makati RTC a motion to dismiss or suspend the proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-221.

    Thereupon, petitioner PPI also filed with the Quezon City RTC a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. Q-99-36797 on the ground of pendency of the Makati City case.

    On April 20, 1999, the Makati RTC issued an order denying respondent’s motion to dismiss. In the same order, the Makati Court granted petitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied on May 6, 1999.

    Meanwhile, the Quezon City RTC has not resolved petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

    Then, in a petition for certiorari and prohibition, respondent NSI questioned the orders of the Makati RTC dated April 20, 1999 and May 6, 1999 before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52666.

    On December 6, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The impugned Orders dated January 29, 1999 and May 6, 1999 of the respondent Judge are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge is hereby directed to dismiss Civil Case No. 99-221, entitled: "Pacsports Phils., Inc. v. Niccolo Sports, Inc. without prejudice to private respondent interposing its claim before the Quezon City case.

    "SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On January 17, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

    Hence, this petition.

    The petition involves two (2) basic issues, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) Which of the two cases should be dismissed by reason of litis pendentia — the Makati City case which was filed earlier or the Quezon City case which was filed later; and

    2) Whether the order of the Makati RTC dated April 20, 1999 granting petitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

    As to the first issue, the parties concede that the Makati City case and the Quezon City case involve the same parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, being founded on the same facts; and that judgment in one would constitute res judicata on the other. Because of the concurrence of these similarities, petitioner and respondent sought the abatement of each other’s suit on the ground of litis pendentia.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The firmly established rule 1 is that one of two actions will be dismissed on ground of litis pendentia if the following requisites concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two (2) cases should be such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other.

    Undisputably, the parties in the Makati case and the Quezon City case are the same. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the Makati case and the defendant in the Quezon City case; and respondent is the defendant in the Makati case and the plaintiff in the Quezon City case.

    The rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for by petitioner in the Makati City case and the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for by respondent in the Quezon City case are all based on the validity of the pre-termination of the Exclusive Retail Agreements.

    In view of those similarities in the two actions, a final judgment on the merits in one would be a bar against the other on the ground of res judicata.

    This Court held in several cases 2 that when the elements of litis pendentia exist, the action filed later should be abated to avoid multiplicity of suits. This is based on the maxim Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure (He who is before in time is the better in right). This is the general rule.

    In ordering the dismissal of the Makati City case filed earlier than the Quezon City case, the Court of Appeals deviated from the said general rule.

    The Court of Appeals gave the following reasons why it ruled that the Quezon City RTC is in a better position to hear the case before it.

    1. Both actions arose from the two (2) Exclusive Retail Agreements entered into by the parties, and the asserted rights are founded on an identical set of facts;

    2. There is a claim of breach of the said Agreements by one of the parties against the other; and

    3. The Quezon City case involves a broader scope of inquiry as it goes to the pith of the controversy, which is the pre-termination of the agreement.

    The Court of Appeals correctly observed that: (1) both actions arose from the two (2) Exclusive Retail Agreements entered into by the parties, and the asserted rights are founded on an identical set of facts; and (2) there is a claim of breach of the said Agreements by one of the parties against the other. However, we can not go along with the Court of Appeals in concluding that the Quezon City case "involves a broader scope of inquiry" than the Makati case. The Appellate Court did not explain why the Quezon City case is broader in scope than the Makati case. In fact, it did not point out the issues in the Quezon City case that are not involved in the Makati case. It bears stressing that the only basic issue between the parties in both cases is whether the pre-termination of the agreements is valid as claimed by respondent or invalid as claimed by petitioner. As crafted, the complaints differ from each other in some details but such details are mere incidents to the basic issue of the validity of the pre-termination of the exclusive retail agreements. Clearly, the Quezon City RTC’s deviation from the general rule can not be sustained on the ground that the case before it involves a broader scope of inquiry.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Neither should the Makati City case be dismissed on the ground that it is anticipatory as maintained by respondent, in its comment, citing Teodoro, Jr. v. Mirasol. 3 Respondent’s invocation of this case is misplaced. Here, the basis for dismissing the first action for declaratory relief is not because it was filed in anticipation of the ejectment case but because the first action was improper and there was no cause of action against the defendant. In fact, it was an unmeritorious and vexatious action. Upon the other hand, the second action for unlawful detainer is decidedly the more appropriate action.

    We thus hold that the Makati City case must be reinstated and that the Quezon City case must be dismissed.

    There is another reason why the Quezon City case should be the one abated. The Makati RTC has commenced proceedings in the case by issuing a writ of replevin and later, an order granting, after hearing, petitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

    We now proceed to the next issue: whether the Makati RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of April 20, 1999.

    It is a long settled rule 4 that for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to issue, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) that his right has been violated and the invasion is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Equally settled 5 is that, as a rule, injunction will not be granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party and place it into that of another whose title has not clearly been established by law.

    The Makati RTC granted petitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on the basis of its findings, enumerated hereunder, which are not disputed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. The exclusive retail agreements between the parties was pre-terminated by the respondent unilaterally on January 25, 1999;

    2. Respondent is withholding petitioner’s golf equipment, accessories and apparel worth P12,377,525.00, as of January 25, 1999, and proceeds from sale in the amount of P1,288,499.84; and

    3. The market value of the golf equipment, accessories and apparel being withheld by respondent depreciates easily due to rapid changes in style or model.

    The Makati RTC required petitioner to post a bond for the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the amount of P13,980,090.00 to answer for any damage that respondent may suffer by virtue of the writ should the court finally adjudge that petitioner is not entitled thereto.

    There is no question that petitioner, as owner of the items being withheld by respondent, is entitled to possession thereof. Respondent’s refusal to deliver them to petitioner is a breach of that right. Its claim for reimbursement and retention of the items in pledge under Articles 1912, 1913 and 1914 of the Civil Code 6 are being disputed by petitioner. Actually, respondent’s claims are not clearly established but yet to be resolved. Secondly, in light of the bond posted by petitioner which would guaranty payment of respondent’s claims if found meritorious, respondent has lost its basis for withholding the disputed items and money as security. Finally, by their nature, the golf equipment, accessories and apparel may not be kept in storage indefinitely or until the dispute between the parties is finally resolved without impairing their market value which would prejudice the petitioner as owner.

    We thus rule that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Makati RTC, in denying respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-221 and in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, acted with grave abuse of discretion.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52666 are REVERSED. The order dated April 20, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141, in Civil Case No. 99-221 denying respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint and order dated May 6, 1999 granting the writ of preliminary injunction are AFFIRMED. Civil Case No. Q-99-36797 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 91, Quezon City, is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to respondent Niccolo Sports, Inc. pursuing its claims before the Makati RTC, Branch 141 in Civil Case No. 99-221. Costs against Respondent.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Cebu International Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 488 (1999); Ramos v. Peralta, 203 SCRA 419 (1991); Yu v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 594 (1994); Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Amin, 260 SCRA 122 (1996); Valencia v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 275 (1996).

    2. Sanpiro Finance Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 220 SCRA 527 (1993); Victronics Computers, Inc. v. Logarta, 217 SCRA 517 (1993); Vda. De Tolentino v. De Guzman, 172 SCRA 555 (1989); Investors Finance Corporation v. Ebarle, 163 SCRA 61 (1998); Arceo v. Oliveros, 164 SCRA 308 (1985); Lamis Ents. V. Lagamon, 108 SCRA 746 (1981); Sta. Ana v. Narvades, 30 SCRA 454 (1969); Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. v. Ocfemia, 18 SCRA 407 (1966); Del Rosario v. Jacinto, 15 SCRA 15 (1968).

    3. 99 Phil. 150 (1956).

    4. Prosperity Credit Recourse, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 52 (1999); Delijo v. Court of Appeals, 117 SCRA 665 (1982); Rivera v. Florendo, 144 SCRA 643, (1986); Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. v. Del Rosario, 22 Phil. 433 (1912); Eusebio v. Aguas, 47 Phil. 567 (1925).

    5. Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion v. Gervacio, Jr., 304 SCRA 322 (1999); S & A Gaisano Incorporated v. Hidalgo. 192 SCRA 224 (1990); Rodulfa v. Alfonso, 76 Phil. 225 (1946); etc.

    6. Art. 1912. The principal must advance to the agent, should the latter so request, the sums necessary for the execution of the agency.

    Should the agent have advanced them, the principal must reimburse him therefor, even if the business or undertaking was not successful, provided the agent is free from all fault.

    Art. 1913. The principal must also indemnify the agent for all the damages which the execution of the agency may have cause the latter, without fault or negligence on his part.

    Art. 1914. The agent may retain in pledge the things which are the object of the agency until the principal effects the reimbursement and pays the indemnity set forth in the two preceding articles.

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


    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