Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > February 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 41072 February 7, 1934 - PO SUN TUN v. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

059 Phil 459:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 41072. February 7, 1934.]

PO SUN TUN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO MAPA and MARIANO ALBERT, Judges-at-large, acting as Judges of First Instance of Manila, and THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE CO., INC., Respondents.

Feliciano Belmonte and Evangelista & Santos for Petitioner.

Lucio Javillonar for respondent Judge Mapa.

Camus & Delgado for respondent the National Exchange Co.

No appearance for the other Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; LACHES. — Unnecessary delay in the enforcement of a right and the subsequent loss of the right of appeal by reason of abandonment constitute laches which is a sufficient cause for denying the remedy of certiorari.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside two orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila on April 15 and August 19, 1933, respectively, whereby the sum of P1,197.16 was paid and delivered to the respondent the National Exchange Company, Inc.

The amended petition was admitted but the motion for postponement of the hearing of the case was denied.

From the pleadings and memorandum submitted by the respondents, the following facts appear:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In civil case No. 30642 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the herein respondent the National Exchange Company, Inc., obtained judgment against Jose H. Katigbak, as principal, and Gavino Barretto, as surety, for the sum of P19,897.85 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from January 1, 1922, with the costs.

In civil case No. 31998 of the same court, Jose H. Katigbak obtained judgment against Po Sun Suy and Po Ching in the sum of P28,500 with legal interest thereon.

In civil case No. 33096 of the same court, the herein petitioner obtained judgment against Concepcion Martinez in the sum of P1,960.

Jose H. Katigbak transferred all his rights and interest in the judgment obtained by him in said civil case No. 31998 in favor of the petitioner Po Sun Tun.

Believing that such transfer was fraudulent, the respondent the National Exchange Company, Inc., instituted civil case No. 33474 in the same court against Jose H. Katigbak and Po Sun Tun. In that case judgment was rendered declaring said transfer fraudulent, which judgment was affirmed on appeal by this court in case G.R. No. 31871. 1 The dispositive part of the afore-cited judgment as rendered by the trial court reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The transfer made by Jose H. Katigbak in favor of his co-defendant Po Sun Tun is hereby declared rescinded. All property of Po Sun Suy and Po Ching liable to execution in civil case No. 31998, should be subject to the result of the judgment obtained by the National Exchange Company, Inc., against Jose H. Katigbak and Gavino Barretto for the sum of nineteen thousand eight hundred ninety-seven pesos and eighty-five centavos (P19,897.85) with the corresponding interest thereon in civil case No. 31998 of this court, with the costs of this case."cralaw virtua1aw library

In civil case No. 33474, the respondent herein filed a motion praying the court to order the clerk of court to deliver to it the sum of P909.16 which Concepcion Martinez had deposited as partial payment of the judgment rendered against her in civil case No. 33096. The court granted said motion and the sum in question was delivered to the herein respondent the National Exchange Company, Inc. After the order issued to that effect had become final on April 15, 1933, the herein petitioner filed several motions for reconsideration which were denied. Notwithstanding the denial thereof, he did not appeal.

In civil case No. 33096 the herein respondent the National Exchange Company, Inc., without being a party thereto, filed a motion praying the court to order the clerk thereof to pay to it the sum of P288 which Concepcion Martinez had deposited with him to satisfy the judgment rendered against her. In an order dated August 19, 1933, the court granted said petition and the said clerk delivered the amount in question to the Respondent. Neither did the petitioner appeal therefrom.

It clearly appears from the above stated facts that the orders dated April 15 and August 19, 1933, respectively, are by nature writs of execution issued by the court to satisfy the judgment rendered by it in favor of the National Exchange Company, Inc., in civil case No. 34474. Therefore, the validity of such writs depends entirely upon the existence in said case of a judgment for the payment of a certain sum of money to the herein Respondent. Upon examination of the judgment in question it appears that the only thing decided against the petitioner consisted in the rescission of the transfer of rights made therein. It did not order the payment of any sum of money by Po Sun Tun to the National Exchange Company, Inc. Therefore, the appealed orders are untenable and null and void on the ground that they have been issued by a court which lacked jurisdiction. If judgment has been rendered, a writ of execution thereof may be issued by the court which rendered the said judgment but the writ should have no other purpose than to comply with or execute such judgment.

Notwithstanding the above conclusion, this court, however, is compelled to decide the petition for a writ of certiorari adversely to the petitioner in view of the fact that he has not diligently exercised the right of appeal which he had against the orders which he now seeks to set aside. There is no question that he could appeal from said orders, but he lost such right by reason of his negligence. Furthermore, we find that said petitioner had incurred in an unreasonable delay by his failure to file this petition sooner and to take any step to that effect more than four months from the issuance of the latter order and more than eight months from the promulgation of the former, without any justifiable cause whatsoever.

"It has already been stated that the general rule is that the writ does not lie until the proceedings are terminated. Thereafter, unreasonable delay or failure to apply within the time limited by statute or established by the local practice is good ground for refusing the writ, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Nor can a void application be renewed within the time limited for the renewal of applications for the writ. The court may refuse to grant the writ: (1) Where the time to apply for the writ is fixed by statute and such time has expired: (2) where the time is regulated by the time to appeal or take out a writ of error, and such time has expired; or (3) where the applicant has delayed for an unreasonable time, there being no statute limiting the time, and the circumstances are such as to warrant the denial of the writ because of such delay." (11 C. J., p. 143.)

"Where the question is not regulated by statute or the fixed procedure, it may be stated as a general rule that the writ must be applied for within a reasonable time, or the same will be refused or dismissed if improvidently issued. . . ." (Ibid., p. 146.)

Another aspect of the case is that the respondent herein has already been in possession of the amount of money in question for several months due to the petitioner’s negligence and inaction.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby dismissed, with the costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. National Exchange Co. v. Katigbak, 54 Phil., 599.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 39590 February 6, 1934 - JESUS AZCONA v. ALBERTA L. REYES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 39607 February 6, 1934 - ENCARNACION MAGALONA, ET AL. v. JUAN PESAYCO

    059 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 39933 February 6, 1934 - RODOLFO TORRELA v. JOSE PEREZ MINGUEZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41072 February 7, 1934 - PO SUN TUN v. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 37197 February 8, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELO TURNO

    059 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 39696 February 8, 1934 - MARIA GUERRERO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 39889 February 8, 1934 - SEINOSUKE OGURA v. SOTERO CHUA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 39425 February 10, 1934 - SILVERIO F. GARCIA v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO

    059 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 38765 February 12, 1934 - LUIS MA. ROBLES v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 39802 February 12, 1934 - DOROTEA MENDOZA VIUDA DE BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 40233 February 14, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 40390 February 14, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE C. NAVALES

    059 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 40849 February 14, 1934 - PERFECTO CORTIGUERA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    059 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 40266 February 15, 1934 - PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO NOMBRE DE JESUS v. C. H. CONRAD

    059 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 40203 February 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO GIMENA

    059 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 37866 February 17, 1934 - NICANOR JACINTO v. JUANA FAJARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 40620 February 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    059 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 40684 February 17, 1934 - CHUA GO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 39881 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 39882 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 40602 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO BERIO

    059 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 39177 February 21, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TAN DIONG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 40008 February 21, 1934 - PAULINO ACOSTA v. NICOLAS LLACUNA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 38612 February 23, 1934 - CIRIACO LIZADA v. OMANAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 41061 February 23, 1934 - MOISES S. AMPIL v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    059 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 41202 February 23, 1934 - LUCIO ARIZ v. CFI OF MANILA

    059 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 39427 February 24, 1934 - TIRSO GARCIA v. LIM CHU SING

    059 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 39461 February 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CORAZON DE CORTEZ

    059 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 39478 February 24, 1934 - PROCESO ECHARRI, ET AL. v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 39634 February 27, 1934 - ROSARIO GUANZON v. GRACIANO RIVERA

    059 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 40098 February 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLAND v. FELIX AZCONA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 40705 February 28, 1934 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 586