THIRD DIVISION.
STATE INVESTMENT
TRUST, INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
144444
April 3, 2003
-versus-
DELTA MOTORS
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Elementary is the rule
that res judicata cannot arise from a judgment that has not attained
finality.
The finality of the decision is, in fact, the first requirement for the
application of this doctrine. We also hold that without a final
judgment,
a trial court’s order of execution has no leg to stand on. On the
other hand, an order authorizing execution pending appeal is likewise
improper
because it was issued after the appeal has been perfected.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the November
16, 1999 Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals[3]
(CA) in CA-GR SP No. 48793. The dispositive part of the Decision
reads thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, the petition
for certiorari is GRANTED. The orders of respondent RTC, Branch 6
of Manila dated May 27, 1998 and August 3, 1998 are hereby
ANNULLED.
Costs against private respondent."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
annulled May 27, 1998 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[5]reads
as follows:
"It appearing that the
decision of the Honorable Supreme Court promulgated on July 24, 1997,
affirming
the challenged resolutions of January 5, 1995 and July 14, 1995 in C.A.
Sp. No. 29147, has become final and executory; that the issues raised
by
(Delta Motors Corporation) in its Oppositions/Comment and Counter
Omnibus
Motion dated March 25, 1998 have already been resolved with finality by
the Honorable Supreme Court in said decision promulgated on July 24,
1997,
the Omnibus Motion dated March 16, 1998 filed by x x x State Investment
House Inc.,[6]
through counsel, is hereby granted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, as prayed
for, (i) Sheriff Eduardo E. Centeno is hereby directed to execute an
Alias
Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale involving TCT No. 27847, issued by the
Register
of Deeds of Pasay City which title is now with the Register of Deeds of
Parañaque in favor of State Investment Trust, Inc., (ii) the
Register
of Deeds of Parañaque, Metro Manila is hereby directed to cancel
TCT No. 27847 registered in the name of Delta Motors Corporation, upon
the presentation of said Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale and issue a new
title
covering the same property in the name of State Investment House, Inc.,
(iii) Sheriff Eduardo Centeno is hereby directed to sell at public
auction
Delta Motors Corporation’s shares of stocks in Canlubang Golf and
Country
Club covered by Certificate Nos. 074 and 075 and the levied real
properties under TCT Nos. 29567, 29563, 29564, 29171, 29565, 29566 and
32784 issued by the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City and; (iv) Sheriff
Eduardo Centeno is hereby directed to continue with the execution
proceedings
commenced by the late Sheriff Orlando M. Alcantara in the
implementation
of the Alias Writ of Execution, and to execute all documents such as,
but
not limited to, the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale or Final Deed of
Sale,
and to perform all acts necessary to implement said writ and to
transfer
in the name of State Investment Trust, Inc. title to the properties of
Delta Motors Corporation subject of notices of levy."[7]
The Facts
The present proceedings
originated from Civil Case No. 84-23019, an action for a sum of money
filed
with the RTC on February 29, 1984 by State Investment Trust, Inc.[8]
(SITI) against Delta Motors Corporation. On December 5, 1984, the
RTC rendered a judgment by default, ordering Delta to pay SITI
P20,061,898.97,
plus 25 percent thereof for attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC Decision was
published three times in the Thunderer, a Manila-based weekly
newspaper.
Seventeen days from the last publication of the Decision, SITI moved
for
the issuance of a writ of execution. The RTC granted the Motion
in
its March 11, 1987 Order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 21, 1990,
Delta obtained a certified true copy of the December 5, 1984 RTC
Decision.
On October 11, 1990, it asked the Court of Appeals to annul the trial
court’s
Decision on the ground that the summons had been served upon a person
not
authorized to receive it; and prayed that judgment be rendered
"annulling/reversing
or setting aside the Decision of the (RTC) judge dated December 5,
1984,
Order dated March 11, 1987 issued by the (RTC) incumbent judge and all
other orders or proceedings issued and conducted pursuant thereto."[9]
Docketed as CA-GR SP No. 23068, this case shall hereafter be referred
to
as the "First Case."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 22, 1991,
the CA rendered a Decision, declaring that the summons had been
properly
served upon Delta through one Evel Torres, the Corporation’s vice
president
for finance, but that the RTC Judgment had not attained finality.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, while the
assailed decision was validly rendered by the (RTC), nonetheless it has
not attained finality pending service of a copy thereof on x x x DELTA,
which may appeal therefrom within the reglementary period."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Notably, the CA Decision
was silent on the assailed March 11, 1987 RTC Order granting the
execution.
Delta then appealed to this Court. However, its Petition,
docketed
as GR No. 100366, was dismissed on August 14, 1991, because of
Delta’s
failure to present proof that a copy of the Petition was served on the
RTC, as required by Revised Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88, which had
taken effect on July 1, 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 12, 1991,
Delta filed its Notice of Appeal with the RTC, which, however,
dismissed
it on June 3, 1992, upon SITI’s motion. Thereafter, Delta filed a
Petition for Certiorari in CA-GR SP No. 29147 (the "Second Case"),
assailing
the RTC Order dismissing the Notice of Appeal. The CA granted the
Petition in its June 17, 1993 Decision:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, the questioned
order of the RTC dated June 3, 1992, dismissing the notice of appeal
dated
November 6, 1991; and the order dated September 14, 1992 of the same
court
denying the motion for reconsideration filed by Delta, through counsel,
are hereby SET ASIDE; and respondent court is hereby ordered to ELEVATE
the records of the case to the Court of Appeals, on appeal."[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SITI elevated the CA
ruling to this Court. While the appeal was pending, Delta filed
with
the CA an Omnibus Motion asking the latter to take the following steps:
"1)
Declare as null and void ab initio and without any force and effect the
Order of the RTC dated March 11, 1987 ordering the issuance of the writ
of execution;
"2)
Declare as null and void ab initio and without any force and effect the
writ of execution issued pursuant to the Order dated March 11, 1987;
"3)
All other proceedings held, conducted and executed by x x x sheriff
implementing
the aforesaid writ of execution."[12]
In its July 18, 1994
Resolution, this Court denied SITI’s appeal and upheld the CA Decision
in the Second Case. Hence, on October 26, 1994, Delta moved for
the
resolution of the Omnibus Motion it had earlier filed with the
CA.
The latter denied the Omnibus Motion in its January 5, 1995 Resolution:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Consequently, the matters
prayed for in the Omnibus Motion of x x x Delta [Motors] Corporation
dated
February 10, 1994 and above-quoted are matters which were not raised as
issues by Delta in the instant petition and, therefore, not within the
jurisdiction and power of this Court in the instant petition to decide.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, the Omnibus
Motion is hereby DENIED."[13]
Consequently, Delta
lodged with this Court an appeal docketed as GR No. 121075. In
its
July 24, 1997 Decision, however, this Court promulgated a Decision
affirming
the CA Resolution denying Delta’s Omnibus Motion. After this
Decision
became final and executory, SITI filed with the RTC on March 16, 1998,
an Omnibus Motion in Civil Case No. 84-23019, asking for the issuance
of
an order:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1. Directing
the incumbent sheriff of this branch, Eduardo E. Centeno, and/or his
successor
in office, to execute an Alias Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale involving
TCT
No. 27847, issued by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City (now title is
with Register of Deeds of Parañaque) in favor of State
Investment
Trust, Inc.;
"2. Directing
the Register of Deeds of Parañaque, Metro Manila, to cancel TCT
No. 27847 registered in the name of Delta Motors Corporation, upon the
presentation of said Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale and issue a new title
covering the same property, in the name of State Investment Trust,
Inc.;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"3. Directing
the incumbent Sheriff of this branch, Eduardo E. Centeno and/or his
successor
in office, to sell at public auction Delta Motors Corporation’s shares
of stocks in Canlubang Golf and Country Club covered by Certificate
Numbers
074 and 075, and the levied real properties under TCT Nos. 29567,
29563,
29564, 29171, 29565, 29566 and 32784 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Dagupan City;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"4. Directing
the incumbent sheriff, and/or his successor in office, to continue with
the execution proceedings commenced by the late sheriff Orlando M.
Alcantara
in the implementation of the Alias Writ of Execution, and to execute
all
documents such as, but not limited to, the Sheriff’s Certificate of
Sale
or Final Deed of Sale, and to perform all acts necessary to implement
said
writ and to transfer in the name of State Investment Trust, Inc. title
to the properties of Delta Motors Corporation subject of notices of
levy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Other reliefs just
and equitable are likewise prayed for."[14]
In opposing the Motion,
Delta pointed out that the case had not attained finality because of
its
pending appeal. The RTC nevertheless rendered the May 27, 1998
Order
granting SITI’s Omnibus Motion. Thereafter, Delta challenged that
Order on certiorari before the CA, which then annulled it in the
present
assailed Decision.
Ruling of the
Court
of Appeals
Ruling on the Second
Case, the CA refused to make any categorical decision on the validity
of
the March 11, 1987 RTC Order on the ground that it had no jurisdiction
over the matter. It noted that the only issue raised in the
Second
Case was the correctness of the June 3, 1992 RTC Order dismissing
respondent’s
appeal of the December 5, 1984 RTC Decision. In GR No. 110667,
this
Court affirmed the CA. Hence, the CA by its refusal to rule on
the
March 11, 1987 RTC Order, did not pass upon the substantial rights of
the
parties, contrary to petitioner’s contention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While it did not nullify
the March 11, 1987 RTC Order in its Decision in the First Case, the CA
held, however, that the RTC judgment, which had not been validly served
on Delta, was not yet final and executory. The CA ruled that the
RTC had acted without jurisdiction when the latter issued its March 11,
1987 Order granting SITI’s Motion for a Writ of Execution. The
appellate
court noted that the RTC’s assailed Decision was not yet final and
executory
at the time, because it ordered the records of the case to be elevated
to it for review in its June 17, 1993 Decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The CA also found that
the RTC had acted without jurisdiction when it relied on GR No. 121075
to grant petitioner’s March 16, 1998 Omnibus Motion. The
appellate
court held that the lower court’s action effectively allowed execution
of the December 5, 1984 Decision even when it had not yet become final
and executory.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.[15]
Issues
Petitioner submits the
following issues for our consideration:
"A.
The Court of Appeals
erred in finding that there was no valid ruling made with respect to
the
17[16]
March 1987 Order and all orders or proceedings issued pursuant thereto.
"B.
The Court of Appeals
erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata and
conclusiveness
of judgment is inapplicable to the case at bar.
"C.
The Court of Appeals
erred in finding [that] the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it
granted
and issued the Writ of Execution.
"D.
The Court of Appeals
erred in not finding that by reason of laches and inexcusable inaction,
Delta has lost its right to appeal."[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issues can be summed
up into three: (1) whether CA-GR SP No. 48793 is barred by res judicata
or the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, (2) whether the RTC
acted
without jurisdiction in issuing the Writ of Execution, and (3) whether
respondent’s appeal is barred by laches.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition has no
merit.cralaw:red
First Issue:
Res Judicata
Petitioner contends
that by not nullifying the Decision of the RTC and the subsequent
proceedings
it conducted, the CA[18]
and this Court[19]
affirmed the validity of the March 11, 1987 Order of Execution.
It
contends that Delta is thus barred from questioning the subsequent RTC
Orders, which merely emanated from the allegedly valid Order granting
execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We disagree. The
CA Decision in CA-GR SP No. 23068 focused solely on the issue of
"whether
or not there was valid service of summons as to vest the RTC with
jurisdiction
over x x x Delta." The appellate court ignored respondent’s assertion
of
the validity of the March 11, 1987 Order for the execution of the RTC
Decision.
The silence of the CA on the matter, however, cannot be taken as its
imprimatur
on the RTC Order. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the validity
of this Order cannot be inferred from the CA Decision, which merely
stated
that the RTC Decision was not yet final and executory. To put it
bluntly, the RTC Order clashed with the CA Decision. The CA
correctly
explained:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is without a doubt
therefore that the decision of the RTC has not become final and
executory.
As a natural or inherent and inevitable consequence of said
declaration,
a decision which has not become final and executory may not be ordered
executed or enforced under Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil
Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Neither is the Order
of March 11, 1987 properly an execution pending appeal under Section
2(a),
Rule 39 of the said Rule, as the ground of the RTC in granting the writ
of execution was that the Decision had already become final and
executory
which is patently erroneous as it had been expressly held by this Court
in CA-G.R. SP No. 23068 that the RTC decision insofar as Delta is
concerned
has not become final and executory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Thus, the RTC acted
without jurisdiction when it granted and issued a writ of execution
under
Section 1, Rule 39 despite the fact that the decision had not become
final
and executory."[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither can the CA’s
refusal to nullify the March 11, 1987 Order in the other Petitions be
construed
as a declaration of its validity. The CA painstakingly explained:
"Indeed in CA-G.R. SP
No. 29147, this Court actually desisted from categorically ruling on
the
issue of the validity of the order of the RTC dated March 11, 1987 as
well
as the other court processes. However, contrary to SITI’s
assertions,
no substantial rights were determined by reason of such refusal to rule
on said issue. This Court declined to rule on said issue
principally
because the same was not raised in the petition, thus, the lack of
jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals to rule on a matter foreign to that brought to
it. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 121075, x x x upheld the
refusal
of the Court of Appeals to rule on said issue simply because it agreed
that the latter court had no jurisdiction to do so in said particular
petition,
which was filed only for the purpose of assailing the RTC order
dismissing
Delta’s appeal."[21]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As matters stood prior
to CA-GR SP No. 48793 (the presently appealed CA Decision), directly or
inferentially, there was yet no judgment or final order on the merits
regarding
the March 11, 1987 Order for the execution of the RTC Decision and the
proceedings conducted relative thereto. Neither was one made in
CA-GR
SP No. 23068, 29147 or GR No. 121075.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It follows that petitioner’s
reliance on res judicata must fail. Such concept is spelled out
in
Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads:
"SEC. 47. Effect
of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order
rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to
pronounce
the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"(b) In other cases,
the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged
or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation
thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by
title
subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding,
litigating
for the same thing under the same title and in the same capacity; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(c)
In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former
judgment
or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or
which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto."
In Mirpuri v. Court
of Appeals,[22]
the Court explained:
"Literally, res judicata
means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing
or matter settled by judgment. In res judicata, the judgment in
the
first action is considered conclusive as to every matter offered and
received
therein, as to any other admissible matter which might have been
offered
for that purpose, and all other matters that could have been adjudged
therein.
Res judicata is an absolute bar to a subsequent action for the same
cause;
and its requisites are: (a) the former judgment or order must be final;
(b) the judgment or order must be one on the merits; (c) it must have
been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
parties;
(d) there must be between the first and second actions, identity of
parties,
of subject matter and of causes of action."
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"x x x A judgment is
on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the
parties
based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or
dilatory
objections."[23]
All the decisions relied
upon by petitioner contain no discussion of the rights and the
liabilities
of the parties vis-à-vis the March 11, 1987 Order. The
judgment
in CA-GR SP No. 23068 was limited to the validity of the summons and
the
RTC Decision. CA-GR SP No. 29147 and GR No. 121075 delved only on
the Notice of Appeal. Both matters were distinct from the subject
of execution, which was involved in the March 11, 1987 RTC Order.
In the absence of a final judgment or final order on the merits, there
can be no res judicata to speak of.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, the CA committed
no error in brushing aside petitioner’s caterwauling on res judicata.cralaw:red
Second Issue:
The RTC’s Jurisdiction in Ordering the Execution
Petitioner asserts that
the RTC acted correctly in issuing the May 27, 1998 Order directing the
continuation of the execution of the RTC Decision.cralaw:red
The following facts
are relevant to the resolution of this issue:
1. The December
5, 1984 RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 84-23019 is the subject of the
Notice
of Appeal filed by respondent on November 12, 1991.cralaw:red
2. The records
of that case have not been actually elevated to the CA by the RTC
despite
the former’s Decision in CA-GR SP No. 29147 directing the elevation of
the records.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Upon petitioner’s
Omnibus Motion dated March 16, 1998, the RTC issued the May 27, 1998
Order
directing the sheriff to continue with the execution of its December 5,
1984 Decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Before this
Court in GR No. 110677, petitioner assailed the CA Decision directing
the
elevation of the records. In our July 18, 1994 Decision, we
affirmed
the CA.cralaw:red
Petitioner insists that
the pre-1997 Rules of Court were applicable. We disagree.
The
issue to be resolved pertains to the May 27, 1998 RTC Order granting
petitioner’s
Omnibus Motion dated March 16, 1998. Thus, the 1997 Rules of
Civil
Procedure, being then already in effect, were applicable.
Considering
further that the RTC Decision sought to be executed by the Order was
not
yet final and executory, Section 2 of Rule 39 of the new Rules should
apply.
It states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Discretionary execution.-
"(a)
Execution of a judgment or a final order pending appeal. - On motion of
the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the
trial
court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of
either
the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the
time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion,
order
execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of
the
period to appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"After the trial court
has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be
filed
in the appellate court.cralaw:red
"Discretionary execution
may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after
due hearing."
Section 9 of Rule 41
of the Rules of Court explains the instances when the trial court loses
jurisdiction over a case:
"A party’s appeal by
record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the
subject
matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due
time.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"In appeals by notice
of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection
of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal
of the other parties.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"In either case, prior
to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the
court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the
rights
of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution
pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal
of the appeal."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the
appeal filed by respondent was perfected on November 12, 1991, when it
filed its Notice of Appeal. Considering that it had already filed
such Notice, and that the period of appeal for petitioner had already
expired,
the RTC no longer had jurisdiction over the case. Hence, the
trial
court acted improperly when it issued its May 27, 1998 Order granting
petitioner’s
Omnibus Motion. That Motion was filed four years after this Court
had affirmed the CA Decision directing the elevation of the records on
appeal. For having been issued without jurisdiction, the Order is
plainly null and void.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the Order
of execution was made without any statement of the special reason for
its
issuance. The rule allowing execution pending appeal is strictly
construed against the movant, because courts look with disfavor upon
any
attempt to execute a judgment that has not acquired a final character.[25]
"An execution pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, being more of
the exception rather than the rule. It is allowed only upon
showing
of ‘good reasons’ by the movant."[26]
In the present case, no reason has been shown for the issuance of the
Order
directing execution pending appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third Issue:
Laches
Petitioner asserts that
respondent is guilty of laches, because it failed to file a timely
Notice
of Appeal. Neither did it do anything to cause the transmittal of
the records of the case to the CA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issue regarding
the Notice of Appeal was already the subject of the CA Decision in
CA-GR
SP No. 29147, which passed upon and directly addressed it.
Moreover,
the matter was laid to rest by this Court in GR No. 110677. We
must
abide by the ruling therein affirming the timeliness of respondent’s
Notice
of Appeal.cralaw:red
Laches means the failure
or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done
earlier.[27]
It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that respondent
pursued its appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal on November 12,
1991.
Since the RTC dismissed it, respondent had to battle for its right to
appeal
to the CA and the Supreme Court. This battle went on until the
latter
part of 1994.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, it was the
duty of the RTC clerk of court to transmit the records to the appellate
court.[30]
The CA, in CA-GR SP No. 29147, in fact ordered the RTC to elevate those
records. Consequently, the RTC was duty-bound to obey this
mandate
within ten (10) days from its receipt of the Notice of the entry of
final
judgment effected on October 17, 1994. The branch clerk of court,
not respondent, was primarily responsible for seeing to it that the
records
of appealed cases were properly sent to the appellate court without
delay.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent was well
within reason to expect and wait for the RTC to elevate the records
without
further prodding. In opposing petitioner’s Omnibus Motion,
respondent
indeed brought up the matter of the pending appeal. Finally, upon
noticing that the elevation of the records was not forthcoming, it
filed
a Motion therefor in August 1998.[32]
These acts are incompatible with the presumption that it had abandoned
its appeal. Hence, it cannot be found guilty of laches.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs
against
petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-30chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[2]
Id., pp. 35-50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Seventh Division. Penned by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez
(Division
chairman and now a justice of this Court) and concurred in by Justices
Salvador J. Valdez Jr. and Renato C. Dacudao (members).
[4]
Assailed Decision, p. 16; rollo, p. 50.
[5]
Rendered by Presiding Judge Lolita C. Dumlao.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
The corporate name was later changed to State Investment Trust, Inc.
[7]
Order dated May 27, 1998; CA rollo, pp. 16-17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Formerly known as State Investment House, Inc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Petition for Review in the First Case, p. 16; rollo, p. 72.
[10]
CA Decision in the First Case, p. 7; rollo, p. 83.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
CA Decision in the Second Case, p. 8; rollo, p. 158. Emphasis provided.
[12]
Rollo, p. 160. Original in upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
CA Resolution in the Second Case, p. 5; rollo, p. 169.
[14]
CA rollo, pp. 23-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 17, 2001, upon
receipt
by this Court of respondent’s Memorandum signed by Atty. Rodolfo dela
Cruz.
Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Attys. Pablito A. Perez and Jinky
Rose
L. Go of Buñag Kapunan Migallos & Perez, was received on
April
30, 2001.
[16]
The date should be March 11, 1987, because the assailed Decision does
not
mention any March 17, 1987 Order.
[17]
Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 10-11; rollo, pp. 308-309. Original
in upper case.
[18]
In CA-GR SP No. 29147 and CA-GR SP No. 23068.
[19]
In GR No. 121075.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
CA Decision in CA-GR SP No. 48793, pp. 13-14; rollo, pp. 47-48.
[21]
Id., pp. 11 & 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
318 SCRA 516, November 19, 1999.
[23]
Id., pp. 536-539, per Puno, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Marawi Marantao General Hospital, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA
321,
January 16, 2001.
[25]
Maceda Jr. v. DBP, 313 SCRA 233, August 26, 1999; Planters Products
Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA 195, October 22, 1999.
[26]
Maceda Jr. v. DBP, supra, per Panganiban, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366, January 21, 1999; De Vera
v.
Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 624, April 14, 1999; Sumbad v. Court of
Appeals,
308 SCRA 575, June 21, 1999.
[28]
Ochagabia v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 587, March 11, 1999; Eduarte v.
Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 18, July 22, 1999; Reyes v. Court of
Appeals,
315 SCRA 626, September 30, 1999.
[29]
In a resolution dated September 21, 1994, the Supreme Court denied
SITI’s
motion for reconsideration.
[30]
§10 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Tan v. Coliflores, 240 SCRA 303, January 20, 1995.
[32]
See CA rollo, pp. 215 and 220.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|