Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > October 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19461 October 31, 1964 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO v. CONCHITA VDA. DE LEARY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-19461. October 31, 1964.]

MIGUEL R. SOCCO, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA VDA. DE LEARY and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Miguel R. Socco in his own behalf as petitioner.

Crispin D. Baizas & Associates and Samson & R. Balderrama Samson for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION; ORDER OF EXECUTION NOT APPEALABLE; EXCEPTION WHERE IT VARIES TERMS OF JUDGMENT. — Ordinarily no appeal is allowed from an order of execution of a final and executory judgment. However, where the order of execution would substantially vary the terms of the judgment, the same is appealable.

2. COURTS; JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS; CERTIORARI IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION ON QUESTIONS OF FACT. — Where a certiorari case against the Court of First Instance involved orders issued by said lower court on questions of fact, so that the appeal from such orders could be made to the Court of Appeals, by virtue of its nature and the amount involved, it is held that said certiorari sought from the latter court is considered "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; MOTIONS; THREE DAYS NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING; EXCEPTION IN URGENT CASES. — The fact that a motion for substitution stated no time and place of hearing and was served without three days notice, was held not to be fatal defect where, considering its urgency, the motion could be held on shorter notice and the time and place of hearing were substantially indicated in its notice which asked for "immediate consideration" of the motion by the "Court of First Instance of Manila."


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J. P., J.:


The petitioner in this case obtained a judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 23345 against therein defendants Conchita Vda. de Leary and Carlos A. Barretto, who were ordered jointly and severally to pay Miguel R. Socco P10,000.00 in damages and to deliver 225,000 shares of the Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. or pay their par value of P22,500.00.

The defendants appealed said judgment to the Court of Appeals which modified it by obliging the defendants to deliver additional shares or pay their par value, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The last part of the judgment stating that it is without prejudice to further action with respect to the fee on the remaining 500,000 escrow shares should be modified, in view of our holding that as the defendants by unlawfully dismissing Attorney Socco voluntarily prevented the fulfillment of the suspensive condition, said condition must be deemed fulfilled insofar as fulfillment partly depended upon his will. Said last part of the judgment is, therefore, deleted and in its stead, the defendants are ordered to deliver, in solidum, to plaintiff an additional 150,000 shares of the Gold Star Mining company or their par value of P15,000.00 upon the release of the 600,000 remaining escrow shares by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Thus modified, the appealed judgment is affirmed. Costs against appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

A petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment was filed in this Court by Conchita Vda. de Leary, but We dismissed it by resolution of May 3, 1961, for lack of merit.

After the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Manila, the latter, on proper motion for execution, issued an order, dated July 14, 1961, for Carlos A. Barretto and Conchita Vda. de Leary to deliver 375,000 shares of the Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. or pay their par value of P37,500.00 within three days from receipt of said order, and upon their failure to do so, for the issuance of a writ of execution against the supersedeas bond and of another writ for the balance of the judgment debt and costs.

After Conchita Vda. de Leary delivered a total of 375,000 shares of the Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. and paid P10,092.00 for the damages and costs, she prayed the court to make of record full satisfaction of the judgment. Petitioner Socco questioned stock certificate No. 220 covering 96,000 shares, and on September 21, 1961, after the reception of evidence on the matter, the court rejected said stock certificate upon the finding that the 96,000 shares covered by it "were registered in the names of third persons and there is no showing that the stockholders indorsed or transferred" their respective stock certificates. Simultaneously, the court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution, against the supersedeas bond, for the sum of P9,600.00 representing the par value of said 96,000 shares.

On September 25, 1961 Conchita Vda. de Leary received at 3 p.m. copy of the order abovementioned and filed an hour later, or at exactly 4:05 p.m., a motion praying that she be allowed to substitute stock certificate No. 220 with stock certificates Nos. 223, 224 and 225 covering 96,000 shares of the Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., attaching the certificates to her motion. But on the following day, September 26, 1961, the writ of execution was issued, and on September 28, 1961 the motion for substitution was denied "for lack of merit." Conchita Vda. de Leary moved to quash the writ of execution, but her motion was denied on September 29, 1961. "for lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

Whereupon she petitioned for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, contending that the order of execution was at variance with the judgment. On January 13, 1962 the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, stating in the dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that the court a quo has acted in abuse of its discretion in the issuance of the order of execution and in denying the substitution of the stock certificates Nos. 223, 224 and 225 with stock certificate No. 220 of the Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., it is hereby declared that the order of the respondent Judge dated September 21, 1961 ordering the issuance of a writ of execution for P9,600.00 against supersedeas bond and also the writ of execution issued in accordance therewith be set aside with costs against respondent Miguel R. Socco and the writ of preliminary injunction issued heretofore be made permanent."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is the above decision which Miguel R. Socco has brought before Us for review in this petition.

Petitioner contends that without a previous motion for reconsideration in the Court of First Instance of Manila, certiorari would not lie. While generally motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari, the same may be dispensed with in cases like this where execution had been ordered and the need for relief was extremely urgent (Luzon Surety Co. v. Marbella, L-16088, September 30, 1960).

Petitioner contends the Court of First Instance acted with authority in denying substitution of the rejected shares and ordering payment of their par value. The action of the Court of First Instance in effect rejected not the particular shares but the choice to deliver shares or pay their par value in accordance with the judgment. This was already varying the terms of the executory judgment, which the court no longer had the power to do. It nullified the freedom of choice granted to the defendants by the judgment sought to be executed.

Petitioner further contends that the Court of Appeals had no authority to take cognizance of the petition for certiorari since the writ sought therein would not be in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. A twofold reason is given. First, that the decision in Civil Case No. 23345, as modified by the Court of Appeals, has already become final and executory, and that the order of execution issued is not appealable. Secondly, even if appeal from the order of execution is allowable, it would perforce involve questions purely of law, and fall within the jurisdiction of this Court, not the Court of Appeals.

Indeed, ordinarily no appeal is allowed from an order of execution of a final and executory judgment, on the theory that otherwise there would be no end to a case. However, an exception to this rule has been recognized. Where, as in this case, the order of execution would substantially vary the terms of the judgment, the same is appealable (Castro v. Surtida, 87 Phil., 166; Manaois-Salonga v. Natividad, L-13927, February 20, 1960).

The order of execution in this case was issued after presentation of evidence, and the Court of First Instance made a finding that stock certificate No. 220 represented shares which belonged to third persons and that its transfer to Carlos A. Barretto was not authorized. This presented a factual question which could be raised on appeal. In fact such question has already been mentioned in the pleadings filed by the parties in the certiorari action before the Court of Appeals, for the petition alleged that shares under stock certificate No. 220 belonged to Carlos A. Barretto and also the answer contended that their transfer to Carlos A. Barretto was illegal, invalid and fraudulent.

Since the acceptance, rejection or substitution of the shares of stock offered in satisfaction of the judgment involved questions of fact, the appeal from the orders thereon issued by the Court of First Instance could be made, by virtue of its nature and the amount involved, to the Court of Appeals. There, in this case, the writ of certiorari sought from that Court is "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner cites Grey Vda. de Alba v. Fabie de Carandang, L-18003, September 29, 1962, holding that the Court of Appeals could not issue a writ of certiorari in aid of an appellate jurisdiction it had already exercised. But in that case We noted that "there can be no reason to say that the Court of Appeals still had jurisdiction to review the final orders and decision of the Court of First Instance in said case, by appeal or writ of error" and that "assuming the orders complained of are appealable, they could only be appealed to Us because the appeal would have necessarily involved nothing more than a question of law."

Petitioner lastly argues that the motion for substitution stated no time and place of hearing and was served without three days notice. Considering its urgency, the motion could be heard on shorter notice (Sec. 4, Rule 26 now Sec. 4, Rule 15, Rules of Court). As to the time and place of hearing, these were substantially indicated in its notice which asked for "immediate consideration" of the motion by the "Court of First Instance [of] Manila"

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




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






October-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19772 October 21, 1964 - CELEDONIA O. VDA. DE ACOSTA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-19668 October 22, 1964 - DOMINGA TORRES v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20424 October 22, 1964 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. ELIAS AGNO

  • G.R. No. L-19578 October 27, 1964 - IN RE: PEDRO T. UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19834 October 27, 1964 - IN RE: FELIX A. QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Adm. Case No. 442 October 30, 1964 - VIRGILIO L. KATINDIG v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. L-13554 October 30, 1964 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNIVERSITY OF VISAYAS

  • G.R. No. L-15841 October 30, 1964 - CALIXTO GOLFEO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17337 October 30, 1964 - FELISA REGALA v. MARGARITA DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18246 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

  • G.R. No. L-19077 October 30, 1964 - WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

  • G.R. No. L-19112 October 30, 1964 - IN RE: TIO TEK CHAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19468 October 30, 1964 - SALVADOR PIANSAY v. CONRADO S. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-19521 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN R. CHAVES

  • G.R. No. L-19556 October 30, 1964 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19577 October 30, 1964 - IN RE: YAP BUN PIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19596 October 30, 1964 - LAVERN R. DILWEG v. ROBERT O. PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. L-19602 October 30, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. v. MAYON MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19977 October 30, 1964 - LAO CHA v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-20076 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGDALENA PADILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20304 October 30, 1964 - PERFECTO FAYPON v. SALVADOR L. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-22789 October 30, 1964 - MANUEL L. PADILLA v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-21678 October 30, 1964 - PHILIPPINE REALTORS, INC. v. GUILLERMO SANTOS

  • Adm. Case No. 482 October 31, 1964 - ROSARIO CRUZ v. EDMUNDO CABAL

  • G.R. No. L-11897 October 31, 1964 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-14615 October 31, 1964 - MANUEL SANTIAGO v. RAFAEL CALUMPAG

  • G.R. No. L-16761 October 31, 1964 - JOHN M. MILLER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17162 October 31, 1964 - MIGUEL P. ARRIETA v. HONORIO BELLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17648 October 31, 1964 - KUENZLE & STREIFF, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18719 October 31, 1964 - PILAR JOAQUIN v. FELIX ANICETO

  • G.R. No. L-19141 October 31, 1964 - IN RE: JUAN MALICDEM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19372 October 31, 1964 - NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKER’S UNION v. PHILIPPINE IRON MINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19439 October 31, 1964 - MAURO MALANG SANTOS v. McCULLOUGH PRINTING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19461 October 31, 1964 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO v. CONCHITA VDA. DE LEARY

  • G.R. No. L-19644 October 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTROPIO ROMAWAK

  • G.R. No. L-19695 October 31, 1964 - IN RE: MATEO QUINGA CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19855 October 31, 1964 - GREGORIO FRANCES v. CRISPULO NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20267 October 31, 1964 - GAW LAM v. AGAPITO CONCHU

  • G.R. No. L-20347 October 31, 1964 - ILDEFONSO BRECINIO v. NICOLAS PAPICTA

  • G.R. No. L-20846 October 31, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CHIU