PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SANTIAGO MANINGO NAMELY: PIOGUITA C. VDA. DE MANINGO, JANNILDA C. MANINGO, MARY LOU C. MANINGO, and MINORS: SANTIAGO C. MANINGO JR., CORAZON C. MANINGO, CHRISTINE C. MANINGO, ENGELBERT C. MANINGO (ALL REPRESENTED IN THIS PETITION BY THEIR MOTHER, PIOGUITA C. VDS. DE MANINONGO), Petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, NEVILLE V. LAMIS ENTERPRISES and NEVILLE V. LAMIS, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) on November 18, 1985, dismissing the following cases: 1) AC G.R. SP No. 03725, entitled, "The Heirs of the late Santiago Maningo, et al. vs. Hon. Adolfo Alba, as Presiding Judge of RTC Davao, et al., 2) AC-G.R. SP No. 04480 entitled, Pioquita Vda. de Maningo as Administratrix of the Estate of Santiago Maningo vs. Judge Jose R. Nolasco of the RTC, Tagum, Davao, et al., 3) AC-G.R. SP No. 04517 entitled, "Paramount Insurance Corporation vs. Hon. Jose R. Nolasco, et I al., and 4) AC-G.R. SP No. 04377 entitled, "Pioquita Vda. de Maningo vs. Hon. Judge Adolfo Alba, et al."

The antecedent facts in the aforestated cases as found by the I respondent appellate court are as follows:

On November 16, 1979, Neville Lamis Enterprises through its proprietor Neville Lamis, filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Santiago Maningo before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pasig, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 35199, to enforce a Memorandum Agreement entered into by them.chanrobles virtual law library

During the pendency of the case, on December 8, 1979, Maningo instituted a complaint against Lamis for collection of a sum of money with preliminary attachment before the RTC-Tagum, Davao, docketed as Civil Case No. 1395. The following day, on December 9, 1980, the court issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon a bond of P100,000.00 issued by Paramount Insurance Corporation. As a consequence thereof, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff levied upon certain personal properties of Lamis. The latter filed an ex-parte manifestation with the Provincial Sheriff for the suspension of the levy on the ground that Civil Case No. 1395 was merely a duplicity of Civil Case No. 35199 which was pending in the CFI (now RTC) of Pasig. Lamis further moved for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1395 based on lis pendens and for improper venue. The court denied the motion in an order dated April 2, 1981.chanrobles virtual law library

Lamis went on certiorari to this Court in a petition filed on July 1, 1981 docketed as G.R. No. 57250. On October 30,1981, We rendered a decision granting the petition and ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1395. Said decision became final on April 8, 1982.chanrobles virtual law library

Four months later, on August 2, 1982, Lamis filed an urgent ex-parte motion in Civil Case No. 1395 for the confiscation of Maningo's attachment bond. The lower court, on October 18, 1982, issued an order setting for hearing the issue of damages.chanrobles virtual law library

At the said hearing for the reception of evidence on damages suffered by Lamis, both the surety, Paramount Insurance Corp. and Maningo objected to the hearing.chanrobles virtual law library

On December 22, 1 982, Maningo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 62733, alleging the following: That Lamis failed to comply with Section 20, Rule 57, which provides that the application for damages must be made before entry of judgment in the subject case; that Lamis filed his application for damages only after final judgment; that Lamis' claim for damages could not by law, exceed the attachment bond; and that in G.R. No. 57250, Lamis is not entitled to the possession of the tractor unit, which is one of properties attached. The petition was dismissed by this Court in a resolution dated February 28, 1983, for lack of merit. This became final on May 4, 1983.chanrobles virtual law library

In view of the dismissal, Lamis filed a motion for the execution of this Court's resolution in G.R. No. 62733 and a motion in Civil Case No. 1395 to be allowed to present evidence for the confiscation of Maningo's attachment bond and for damages.chanrobles virtual law library

However, on August 14, 1983, Santiago Maningo died intestate and his counsel moved for the dismissal of Case No. 1395 on the ground that the heirs are no longer interested in the prosecution of the case.chanrobles virtual law library

The lower court, on December 28, 1983, denied the above motion and set the case for hearing.chanrobles virtual law library

In the meantime, on March 6,1984, the court issued an order requiring the sheriffs to take into custody in favor of Lamis1 all attached properties still unreleased by Maningo.chanrobles virtual law library

On March 13, 1984, the intestate proceedings of the late Santiago Maningo began in the RTC of Davao, docketed as Sp. Proc. 248.chanrobles virtual law library

On May 24, 1984, the lower court issued two orders: 1) an order requiring the surety to pay Lamis the sum of P100,000.00 as the total claim for damages by reason of the unlawful attachment; and 2) another order for the issuance of a writ of execution against the surety. The hearing for the reception of evidence against the heirs was reset to another date.chanrobles virtual law library

Hence, on July 10, 1984, the heirs of Manigno filed with the Intermediate Appellate Court, a petition for certiorari, mandamus, with preliminary injunction dockected was AC-G.R. SP No. 03725, seeking to set asice all the orders of th lower court. Upon dismissal thereof, the present petition was filed by the heirs of Santiago Manigno.