ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA IPI No. 03-1912-RTJ.� July 13, 2005]
RE: ANTOLIN vs. QUIROZ
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13 2005.
OCA IPI No. 03-1912-RTJ (Re: Atty. Nelson T. Antolin, et al. vs. Judge Alex L. Quiroz and Sheriff Edwin V. Garrobo of the Regional Trial Court [Branch 156], Pasig City; and Sheriff IV Mario S. Pangilinan of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Pasig City, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority.)
A civil action for Damages and Accounting was filed by Fruehauf Electronics, Inc. (Fruehauf) against Signetics Corporation, U.S.A. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 156, docketed as Civil Case No. 59264. Complainants Attys. Nelson T. Antolin and Diosdado R. Trillana were the counsel for Philips Semiconductors Philippines, Inc. (PSPI), the local subsidiary of Signetics Corporation, U.S.A.
On 31 October 1996, the RTC rendered a decision against defendant Signetics Corporation, U.S.A., the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant and/or its local subsidiary:
1. To account for and return the machineries, equipment and accessories removed by defendant and/or its local subsidiary from the leased premises;
2. To formally transfer title to and surrender the possession of the lot subject of the lease contract to the plaintiff together with the buildings, machineries, installations and improvements on it;
3. To pay plaintiff the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (500,000) as moral damages for the injury to plaintiff's business standing and commercial credit; One Million Pesos (1,000,000) as exemplary damages; Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (200,000) as and for attorney's fees and to pay the cost of suit.
On 21 May 2002, Fruehauf moved to execute the RTC decision against PSPI, the local subsidiary of Signetics Corporation, U.S.A. On the same date, respondent Judge denied the motion on the ground that there was no legal nor factual basis justifying the execution of the RTC decision against a complete stranger like PSPI.
Not satisfied, Fruehauf appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the RTC decision could be enforced against PSPI because it was a subsidiary of Signetics Corporation, U.S.A. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The May 21, 2002 order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 156 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the court is directed to issue a writ of execution against Philips Semiconductors, Philippines, Incorporated as the local subsidiary of the original defendant, Signetics, USA, in accordance with the decision of the trial court dated October 31, 1996.
On 17 October 2003, the court through its Branch Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution, giving rise to the instant administrative complaint dated 18 October 2003.
Complainants alleged that respondent judge ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against PSPI notwithstanding a pending motion for reconsideration lodged by the former in the Court of Appeals, thus, the decision has not yet attained finality. Complainants further alleged that on 17 October 2003, Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan tried to implement the writ and that the two (2) sheriffs gave PSPI until 21 October 2003 to comply with the directives set forth thereon.
In his Comment dated 25 November 2003, Judge Quiroz belies the claim of the complainants that he issued the writ without any justification. He cites as his legal anchor the Decision dated 10 September 2003 of the Court of Appeals that directed the court of origin (RTC, Branch 156, Pasig City) to issue the assailed writ. He contends that Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that "the appellate court may, on a motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution." Judge Quiroz admits that while the plaintiff did not file any motion for the issuance of a writ, he still issued the same in compliance with the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Judge Quiroz likewise points to Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court which provides that judgments in actions for injunction, receivership and accounting are "immediately executory" and "shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court."
For his part, Sheriff Pangilinan, in his Comment dated 01 December 2003, claims that he merely assisted Sheriff Garrobo in the implementation of the writ. He further reveals that the writ was actually implemented in coordination with the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio-Sheriff of the RTC-Binan, Laguna. He denies that the personnel involved displayed boorish behaviour upon arriving at the premises of PSPI, adding that the situation only became hostile because of the confrontational approach of the lawyers.
Sheriff Garrobo, on the other hand, failed to submit his Comment on the complaint despite receiving two (2) notices from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In the meantime, the OCA discovered that complainants Attys. Nelson T. Antolin and Diosdado R. Trillana filed the very same complaint with the Court En Banc which was docketed as A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ (Atty. Nelson T. Antolin, et al. vs. Judge Alex Quiroz, Sheriffs Edwin Garrobo and Mario Pangilinan, all of the RTC, Pasig City). In a Resolution dated 06 July 2004, the Court En Banc, acting upon the recommendation of the OCA, dismissed the complaint against Judge Quiroz for lack of merit but referred the charges against Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan to the Executive Judge of the RTC at Pasig City for investigation, report and recommendation. As of the present, the charges against Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan remain pending with the Court En Banc under A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1893-RTJ, where the two respondents are being investigated by 1st Vice-Executive Judge Florito S. Macalino of the Pasig City RTC pursuant to the Resolution dated 06 July 2004 of the Court en banc.
It appears that two (2) cases OCA IPI No. 03-1912-RTJ (the case at hand) and A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ, stem from the very same complaint filed by complainants Antolin, et al. The circumstances which led to the duplication in the docketing of the same administrative complaint have been clearly explained by OCA, thus:
Atty. Antolin, et al., albeit with no intent to forum shop, filed with both the Office of the Chief Justice and the OCA their complaint dated 18 October 2003. The OCA, through the Legal Office, acted on the case by virtue of its copy of the complaint. On the other hand, the Court En Banc, in a Resolution dated 24 February 2004, referred the original copy of the complaint it received to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The original copy of the complaint was docketed as A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ.
It must be mentioned that the Court had already acted on A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ. In a Resolution dated 6 July 2004, the Court En Banc resolved to dismiss the case against Judge Quiroz for lack of merit. To reiterate, the complaint against Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan was referred to the Executive Judge of Pasig City for further investigation.
As for the case before us, OCA made the following recommendation:
The instant administrative case - OCA IPI No. 03-1912-RTJ-cannot be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia. In Northcott and Company vs. Villa-Abrille (14 Phil. 462, 17 March 1921), the Court ruled that dismissal of a case on the ground of litis pendencia can be invoked if there exist between the two cases substantial identity in the parties, causes of action and relief sought. Moreover, the result of the first action should be determinative of the second in any event. The case of R&M General Merchandise, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 144189, 5 October 2001, 366 SCRA 679) enumerates the requisites for litis pendencia: "(a) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same act; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other."
The principle of litits pendencia contemplates a scenario where two cases substantially involve the same parties, facts and issues, with the result of the first action being determinative of the second. There are no two complaints to speak of in the instant case as Atty. Antolin, et al., for all intents and purposes, filed only one administrative complaint. The case at bar simply involves two (2) offices acting on the same complaint. The complaint was inadvertently split into two (2) administrative matters when the Court and the OCA both decided to act on the matter. This creates the impression that litis pendencia would be applicable. Any dismissal of the complaint on the ground of litis pendencia would however have no solid legal foundation to stand on.
On the other hand, it would be superfluous for the Court to decide on the facts and issues attending the instance administrative case in the light of its ruling in A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ. The ruling of the Court in A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ cannot be isolated or treated with exclusivity vis-�-vis the case at bar, as it was based on the same complaint. The instant administrative case should therefore be deemed "closed and terminated."
Finding the recommendation to be well taken, WE resolve to declare CLOSED and TERMINATED the instant administrative complaint, but the same should not be construed as affecting in any manner A.M. No. 03-1893-RTJ in so far as the charges against Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan are concerned.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
