ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 176123 : March 10, 2010 JOSE CABARAL TIU, Petitioner, v. FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 185265 JOSE CABARAL TIU, Petitioner, v. TIMBER EXPORTS, INC., ANGEL DOMINGO, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERFECTO MONDARTE, JR. and CESAR DACAL, Respondents. D E C I S I O N CARPIO MORALES, J.: The following facts spawned the filing of these two consolidated cases: On January 14, 1990, petitioner Jose Cabral Tiu (petitioner) and First Plywood Corporation (FPC) entered into an Agreement Alleging that FPC, through its general manager Edmund Tansengco (Tansengco), prohibited him from entering its timber concession areas in contravention of the aforesaid Agreement, petitioner filed on February 23, 1990 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City (Pagadian RTC) a complaint against FPC and Tansengco for specific performance with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages. On the basis of a March 22, 1990 Compromise Agreement Then Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy (Tarongoy) thereupon issued a Notice of Levy and Sale of Personal Properties dated May 18, 1990, levying upon the personal properties of FPC and Tansengco consisting mainly of motor vehicles, and publishing notice of the sale thereof at public auction on May 23, 1990. Meanwhile, by Omnibus Motion dated May 7, 1990, FPC prayed for an Order
cralawThe auction sale pushed through just the same, as scheduled on May 23, 1990 following which, petitioner, who was the highest bidder thereat, was issued a Certificate of Sale. The Pagadian RTC later denied FPCs Omnibus Motion by Order of June 11, 1990. G.R. No. 176123 FPC thereupon filed on November 26, 1991 with the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Manila RTC) a complaint against petitioner and sheriff Tarongoy for annulment of execution sale with damages, praying for the nullification of the Pagadian case execution sale, the return of the personal properties purchased by petitioner, and for damages. FPC argued mainly that the execution sale was held without complying with then Section 18 Petitioner and Tarongoy By Decision of July 16, 2001, the Manila RTC ruled in favor of FPC, disposing thus: WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff corporation, FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, ORDERING defendants JULIO G. TARONGOY and JOSE CABARAL TIU jointly and severally:
cralawIn finding for FPC, the Manila RTC held that no notice of sale of personal property on execution was posted in three public places not less than five days prior to the Pagadian case execution sale held on May 23, 1990, resulting in its nullity. On FPCs motion, the Manila RTC issued a writ of execution on May 22, 2006, Petitioner challenged the Manila RTC Decision via a petition for annulment of judgment The appellate court dismissed the petition outright by Resolution of August 23, 2006, His motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated December 5, 2006, Petitioner argues that, among other things, estoppel does not lie against him as the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised in the Manila RTC through his pleading styled as a Comment on the Pleadings Relative to the Other Civil Cases Filed by Plaintiff Before Other Courts.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary FPC maintains, on the other hand, G.R. No. 185265 In the meantime, in January 1991, respondents TEI and Angel Domingo (Domingo), claiming to be the owners of some of the personal properties purchased by petitioner at the Pagadian case execution sale, filed a complaint for annulment of execution sale with damages against petitioner, Sheriff Tarongoy and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (CBIC) with the RTC of Antipolo City (Antipolo RTC). The complaint was later amended to implead as plaintiffs William Tiosic, Francisco Tansengco, Rafael Tansengco, Guillermo Tansengco, Ma. Angeli Tansengco, Reuben Asuncion, Ma. Teresa San Agustin and Alvin Sebastian, alleged stockholders of TEI. The plaintiffs in the Antipolo RTC case prayed for the nullification of the sale at the Pagadian case execution sale of the properties which they claimed to belong to them, and the return to them of those properties. The complaint was raffled to Branch 74 and docketed as Civil Case No. 90-1867.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary CBIC was impleaded as a defendant allegedly on account of its issuance of the bond filed by petitioner in favor of TEI and Domingo who had filed third-party claims on the properties sold at the Pagadian case execution sale. For their part, petitioner and Tarongoy contended that TEI and its alleged successors-in-interest/co-plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue as TEIs corporate existence had expired; and that the properties in dispute belonged to FPC at the time of the levy. CBIC, on the other hand, denied having issued the alleged bond, claiming that the same was not even in the prescribed legal form. The Antipolo RTC dismissed respondents TEI and Domingos complaint as well as the counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint by Decision of September 19, 2005. Respondents TEI and Domingo By Decision of November 16, 2007, The appellate court thus ordered herein petitioner to pay TEI and Domingo temperate damages for the questioned properties with legal interest; held CBIC solidarily liable with petitioner to the extent of the amount indicated in the surety bond which was determined to have been regularly issued; and declared petitioner, Mondarte and Dacal solidarily liable to reimburse CBIC pursuant to the indemnity agreement they co-signed, without prejudice to Mondarte and Dacals right of reimbursement against petitioner.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated November 6, 2008, Petitioner posits that, among other things, TEI had no personality to file the complaint with the Antipolo RTC, its corporate life having expired before such filing; that neither did TEIs supposed stockholders have any personality to file the amended complaint as there was no prior conveyance to them of the properties being claimed by TEI; that the invoices and bills of lading presented by TEI and Domingo as evidence were devoid of any particulars to prove that the properties referred to therein were the same ones levied upon in the Pagadian case; and that the appellate courts pronouncements on indemnity in favor of CBIC and right of reimbursement in favor of Mondarte and Dacal were erroneous since they did not appeal from the Antipolo RTC Decision.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary TEI and Domingo, in their Comment, CBIC, in turn, avers that the grant of its cross-claim against petitioner and third-party complaint against Mondarte and Dacal was proper as it was impleaded as an appellee before the appellate court. On petitioners motion, the Court, by Resolution of March 11, 2009, Both petitions are meritorious.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The key to resolving the petitions lies in the validity of the Pagadian case execution sale.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The presumption of regularity in the performance of official function here applies. Conformably, any party alleging irregularities vitiating an auction sale must come forward with clear and convincing proof. In G.R. No. 176123, FPC has not discharged its burden of proof. Apart from its bare allegations, it has not come forward with any evidence, let alone a clear and convincing one, of non-compliance with the requirement of a minimum of five days prior notice of sale of property on execution. Hence, in the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption prevails that the sheriff performed his official duty of posting the notices of sale within the reglementary period. The Court finds that petitioner properly availed of the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment in challenging the Manila RTC Decision. In his petition with the appellate court, he did not limit his ground to extrinsic fraud, as he invoked as well the Manila RTCs lack of jurisdiction to annul the proceedings in the Pagadian RTC which is a court of co-equal and coordinate jurisdiction.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Since petitioners petition raised lack of jurisdiction, he did not have to allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration or appeal were no longer available through no fault of his. This is so because a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action, or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked. Verily, the Manila RTC lacked jurisdiction over the nature of the action filed by FPC. The Pagadian RTC which rendered the decision and ordered the execution sale should settle the whole controversy. Resultantly, the Manila RTC Decision of July 16, 2001 is void for lack of jurisdiction. As such, it, as well as all subsequent orders proceeding therefrom, should have been annulled by the appellate court.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked anytime. It creates no rights and produces no effect. It remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Respecting G.R. No. 185265, the Court finds that the action lodged with the Antipolo RTC was essentially the same as that filed with the Manila RTC. The relief sought was also the annulment of the Pagadian case execution sale. Hence, the Antipolo RTC was similarly bereft of jurisdiction over the nature of the action. This should have been its basis for dismissing the complaint.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The various branches of the RTC, having as they do have the same or equal authority and exercising as they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot and are not permitted to intervene with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. The Court sees through the ruse being peddled by FPC.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary More than a year after it failed to obtain a reversal of the judgment based on compromise agreement in the Pagadian case, and long after the conclusion of the execution sale pursuant thereto, FPC sought to alter the adverse results of the Pagadian RTC final and executory Decision by filing a complaint for annulment of the Pagadian execution sale with damages with the Manila RTC a court of concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary FPC had also previously caused a defunct sister company, TEI, and its so-called "stockholders" to lodge another complaint for annulment of the same Pagadian case execution sale with damages with the Antipolo RTC another court of concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction as the Pagadian RTC.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary This Court would be the last to sanction such a brazen abuse of remedies and disrespect of judicial stability. What is clear is that FPC is feebly attempting to disturb the effects of a judgment that, by its failure to appeal, had long become final and been the subject of execution. This cannot be allowed without running afoul of the settled doctrine of finality of judgment.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. A final and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. In G.R. No. 176123, the challenged August 23, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioners petition is SET ASIDE. The Manila RTC Decision of July 16, 2001 in Civil Case No. 91-59404 is DECLARED null and void. In G.R. No. 185265, the November 16, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Antipolo RTC is SET ASIDE. The September 19, 2005 Decision of the Antipolo RTC in Civil Case No. 90-1867 dismissing the complaint is REINSTATED but on a different ground lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|