ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 166993.� April 27, 2005]

DSM CONST. vs. CA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 27 2005.

G.R. No. 166993 (DSM Construction and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc.)

This pertains to petitioner DSM Construction and Development Corporation's (DSM Construction) Petition for Certiorari with application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, dated 23 February 2005, assailing the Resolution dated 21 February 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88314 (Megaworld Globus Asia Inc., v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, et al.). In the Resolution, the appellate court issued a TRO effective for sixty (60) days from the date thereof, enjoining DSM Construction and its co-respondents therein, namely: Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (C.I.A.C.); Atty. Engracio Escasinas, Sheriff IV Villamor R. Villegas; Sheriff IV Norberto R. Magsajo; and all persons acting in their behalf and upon their authority, from proceeding with the scheduled execution sale on 1 March 2005 of the properties of therein petitioner (now respondent herein), Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. (Megaworld), to satisfy the final and executory judgment rendered by the C.I.A.C. on 19 October 2001 in CIAC Case No. 22-000. In the said judgment, the C.I.A.C. adjudged Megaworld liable to DSM Construction in the amount of Sixty Two Million Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Eight Pesos and Forty-Nine Centavos (P62,760,558.49), exclusive of interests, fees and other charges.

The C.I.A.C. judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 18 January 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67432 and later by this Court in the Decision dated 2 March 2004 in G.R. No. 153310. After the Court had denied Megaworld's motions for reconsideration, its Decision became final and executory on 12 August 2004 and the corresponding Entry of Judgment was made thereafter.

On 22 November 2004, the C.I.A.C. issued an Alias Writ of Execution for the enforcement of its judgment. Soon thereafter, seven (7) condominium units of Megaworld which were levied upon during the pendency of Megaworld's petition (G.R. No. 153310) before this Court, along with three (3) more condominium units which were levied upon after the issuance of the Alias Writ of Execution, were scheduled for sale on execution on 1 March 2005.

Arguing that the Court of Appeals in its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67432 had limited DSM Construction to levying only six (6) condominium units, Megaworld in the meantime sought clarification from the C.I.A.C. as to whether the execution would be so limited to said number of units. The C.I.A.C. declared in essence that the appellate court did not impose such limit.

Megaworld questioned the levy and the sale on execution before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88314 on the ground, among others, that the Court of Appeals in the earlier case had imposed the aforementioned limit. The temporary restraining order issued by the appellate court in said case expired on 22 April 2005, sixty (60) days from the issuance of the Resolution dated 21 February 2005.

Considering the antecedents referred to above and in the interest of justice, there is a need to enjoin the Court of Appeals from taking farther proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 88314, and the parties from taking any further action relative to the execution of the judgment of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission in CIAC Case No. 22-000, during the pendency of the present petition or until such time as may be deemed proper by this Court. Accordingly, the Court resolves to DIRECT the parties and the Court of Appeals to MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO effective 22 April 2005, the date of the expiration of the temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals, and continuing thereafter until further orders from this Court.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE