March 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2011 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 157856^[*] (Concepcion C. Anillo of Barangay San Nicolas [formerly Molino], Bacoor, Cavite v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, etc., et al.).

On August 5, 2010 respondent Green Valley Subdivision Homeowners' Association, Inc. (GVSHA) filed a motion to release to it the cash bond of P100,000,00 that petitioner Concepcion C. Anillo deposited with the Court in connection with the case. Anillo asked the Court to nullify the writs of execution and demolition that the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) issued against her and, pending action on the case, to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining such execution and demolition. On May 15, 2003 the Court issued the TRO that Anillo asked conditioned on her posting a cash bond of P100,000.00 to answer for damages that GVSHA might suffer on account of such issuance. Anillo complied.

On September 27, 2007 the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of violation of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and res judicata. It lifted the TRO of May 15, 2003 but made no award of damages arising from its issuance. Anillo filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but the Court denied it on March 5, 2008. The decision became final and executory and entry of judgment was made in the case on June 28, 2008.

In its motion to get the cash bond GVSHA claims that, because of the issuance of the TRO in the case, the writs of execution and demolition were stayed and enabled Anillo and those with her to continue their unauthorized sale of lots in GVSHA's subdivision and hire security guards and goons to prevent the registered landowners from entering their property and clear these of squatters.

The question before the Court is whether or not GVSHA is entitled to the release of Anillo's cash bond of P100,000.00 to answer for the damages GVSHA sustained because of the Court's issuance of the May 15, 2003 TRO.

We rule against the motion since the Court can no longer award damages after the decision we rendered in the case became final and executory.^[1] The Court may award damages against a bond only upon application and after proper hearing, with such award included in the final judgment. In failing to file the proper motion on time, the claimant loses his right to such damages.^[2]

Here, the Court did not see fit to award damages in GVSHA's favor after it decided the case and lifted the TRO. Only now, nearly three years later, has GVSHA applied for such award in what amounts to a belated motion for reconsideration of the decision.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court DENIES respondent Green Valley Subdivision Homeowners' Association's motion to release cash bond dated August 5, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[*] J. Nachura, on official leave. J. Velasco, Jr. additional member, per Special Order 933 dated January 24, 2011. J. Mendoza, on leave. J. Brion, additional member, per Special Order 975 dated March 21, 2011.

^[1] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 58, Sec. 8 and Rule 57, Sec. 20. 

^[2] Curilan v. Court of Appeals, 105 Phil. 1160, 1163-1164 (1959), citing Japco v. City of Manila, 48 Phil. 851, 855(1926).

Back to Home | Back to Main