Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > April 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21705 April 27, 1967 - NAWASA v. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21705. April 27, 1967.]

NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, Presiding Judge, CFI-Misamis Occidental, Branch I, Province of Misamis Occidental; SEBASTIAN L. MANLAWE, Acting Clerk of CFI-Misamis Occidental and the Sheriff of Manila, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-24327. April 27, 1967.]

THE PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v., THE NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.

L-21705:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic, Jr. for Petitioner.

R. J. Abadies for Respondents.

Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

L-24327:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic, Jr. for defendant and Appellant.

L. P. de Guzman, Jr. for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENTS; ORDER OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR NOT ESSENTIAL. — There is no legal provision barring execution of a decision, which is not yet final, before notice thereof has been served upon the judgment debtor.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; REP. ACT No. 1383, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF. — This Court has repeatedly held, in several decisions, the first of which was rendered as early as August 30, 1959, that Republic Act No. 1383 — upon the authority of which the NAWASA had acted in taking over the Systems in question — is unconstitutional — insofar as it makes the NAWASA the owner of all local water works systems in the Philippines — upon the ground that it constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

3. ID.; JUDGMENTS; ORDER OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; SUPERSEDEAS BOND; EFFECT OF FILING THEREOF. — Although the execution of a decision pending appeal may be suspended upon the filing of a supersedeas bond, the judgment debtor is not entitled to a suspension as a matter of right. The court is merely empowered to order it in the exercise of its sound judgment or discretion. Considering that the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned feature of Republic Act No. 1383 is now settled, and that the appeal from the decision of the lower court insofar as the ownership, possession, administration and control of the Systems in question — can not possibly prosper and can merely have, therefore, a dilatory effect, the lower court was obviously justified in refusing to suspend the execution of its decision, despite NAWASA’s offer of a supersedeas bond.

4. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; GOOD FAITH; EFFECT THEREOF. — The award of exemplary and temperate damages and attorney’s fees was not justified, for the NAWASA took over the Systems in compliance with Republic Act No. 1383, which it was entitled to assume to be constitutional. In other words, it had acted in good faith.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


These are interrelated cases. G. R. No. L-21705 is a petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, to set aside an order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, directing the execution of its decision in Civil Case No. 2281 thereof, entitled "The Province of Misamis Occidental v. The National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority" — hereinafter referred to as NAWASA — during the pendency of the appeal taken by the latter from said decision, whereas G. R. No L-24327 is the aforementioned appeal.

Said case No. 2281 was instituted by the Province of Misamis Occidental — hereinafter referred to as the Province — on July 13, 1960, to recover from the NAWASA the possession, administration, operation and control of the Misamis Waterworks System and the Oroquieta Waterworks System — hereafter referred to collectively as the Systems — which had been taken over by the NAWASA since 1956, acting in pursuance of Republic Act No. 1383. In due course, said court — presided over by Hon. Alfredo Catolico, Judge, one of the respondents in L-21705 — rendered judgment, on April 30, 1963, declaring that the Province is the absolute owner of said Systems and ordering the NAWASA to return the same to the Province, to refund thereto the sum of P13,855.44 which the Province had delivered to the NAWASA when it took over the Systems, to render — within thirty (30) days from notice of said decision — an accounting of the income realized by the Systems since April 1956, or, in defect of such accounting, to pay to the Province the sum of P7,823.76 monthly, the average monthly income of the two (2) Systems, from April, 1956, to the date of the return thereof to the Province, as well as to pay thereto P50,000, as temperate, punitive and exemplary damages, and P5,000 by way of attorney’s fees, in addition to the costs.

On May 3, 1963, copy of the decision was sent by registered mail to counsel for the NAWASA, in Manila. On May 8, the Province filed a motion, which was set for hearing on May 25, for the execution of said decision. Copy of this motion was received on May 13, by NAWASA’s counsel, who, on May 14, prepared an opposition thereto upon the ground that he had not, as yet, received copy of the decision. Invoking the same ground, the NAWASA requested by telegram, on May 24, the postponement of said hearing. On May 25, Judge Catolico denied said request, overruled NAWASA’s objection to the motion for execution and granted the same. Two (2) days later, the clerk of court issued the corresponding writ of execution, which was complied with on May 28, 1963, insofar only as the possession, administration, operation and control of the Systems, which were turned over to the Province, not as to the money judgment in its favor, which remained unsatisfied for lack of funds therefor in the NAWASA offices in Misamis Occidental.

Soon thereafter, the NAWASA filed an urgent motion, dated May 31, 1963, for "permission to post supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal." It, likewise, filed a supplement to said motion, dated June 30, 1963, stating that the order of execution was not supported by good grounds and that the damages that might arise from the delay in the execution of the decision "can be fully compensated." By an order dated July 2, 1963, the lower court, then presided over by Hon. Arturo B. Santos — Judge Catolico being then on leave — denied said urgent motion, after receiving NAWASA’s evidence in support thereof. Accordingly, on July 5, 1963, the clerk of court issued another writ of execution addressed to the City Sheriff of Manila.

Subsequently, or on August 16, 1963, the NAWASA filed the petition for certiorari in G. R. No. L-21705, predicated upon the theory that the lower court had abused its discretion in ordering the execution of its decision pending appeal therefrom and in denying the urgent motion to stay the execution upon the filing of a supersedeas bond. In support of this contention, the NAWASA insists that the order of execution was prematurely issued on May 27, 1963, because the NAWASA had not as yet received copy of the aforementioned decision, because there was allegedly no valid and sufficient reasons to order said execution, and because the NAWASA claims to be entitled to stay the execution upon the posting of a supersedeas bond.

We find no merit in this pretense. To begin with, there is no legal provision barring execution of a decision, which is not yet final, before notice thereof has been served upon the judgment debtor. Secondly, copy of the decision of the lower court had, on May 3, 1963, been sent, by registered mail, in Ozamis City, addressed to NAWASA’s counsel in Manila. In the ordinary course of events, he should have received said copy long before May 25, 1963, when the motion for execution was heard. Indeed, this motion was filed on May 8, and copy thereof was received by said counsel, in Manila, five (5) days later, or on May 13, 1963. In fact, NAWASA’s representative in Misamis Occidental had, prior to May 25, 1963, advised the NAWASA, by telegram, of the aforementioned decision. Moreover, said representative was present, in the courtroom, when the motion for execution was heard on May 25, 1963. Then too, NAWASA’s written opposition to the motion for execution was prepared on May 14, 1963. In other words, the NAWASA had an opportunity to object to said motion and did, in fact, object thereto.

Thirdly, this Court has repeatedly held, in several decisions, the first of which was rendered as early as August 30, 1959, 1 that Republic Act No. 1383 — upon the authority of which the NAWASA had acted in taking over the Systems in question — is unconstitutional — insofar as it makes the NAWASA the owner of all local waterworks systems in the Philippines — upon the ground that it constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

Fourthly, although the execution of a decision pending appeal may be suspended upon the filing of a supersedeas bond, the judgment debtor is not entitled to a suspension as a matter of right. The court is merely empowered to order it in the exercise of its sound judgment or discretion. 2 Considering that the unconstitutionally of the aforementioned feature of Republic Act No. 1383 is now settled and that the appeal from the decision of the lower court — insofar as the ownership, possession, administration and control of the Systems in question — can not possibly proper and can merely have, therefore, a dilatory effect, the lower court was obviously justified in refusing to suspend the execution of its decision, despite NAWASA’s offer of a supersedeas bond.

As regards the appeal taken by the NAWASA, it is even more patent, in view of the aforementioned decisions of this Court that, as regards the title, possession, administration and control of the Systems, and the obligation to refund the funds seized from the treasury of said Systems when the NAWASA took over the same, and to account for the earnings thereof, said appeal has no leg to stand on.

The lower court was not justified, however, in awarding P50,000 as exemplary and temperate damages, and P5,000, as attorney’s fees, for the NAWASA took over the Systems in compliance with said Republic Act No. 1383, which it was entitled to assume to be constitutional. In other words, it had acted in good faith.

Wherefore, the writ prayed for in G. R. No. L-21705 is denied, and the complaint therein dismissed, with costs against the NAWASA, and, with the elimination of said award for exemplary and temperate damages and attorney’s fees, the decision appealed from in G. R. No. L-24327, is hereby affirmed, in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Baguio v. NAWASA, 57 Off. Gaz. 1584; Cebu v. NAWASA L-12892, April 20, 1960; Naguillan v. NAWASA, L-18540, November 29, 1963; Mun. of La Carlota v. NAWASA, L-20232, September 30, 1964; Mun. of Compostela v. NAWASA, L-21763, December 17, 1966.

2. Rule 39, Sections 2 and 3, Rules of Court, effective January 1, 1964; De Leon v. Soriano, L-7848, September 17, 1954; Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, L-12534, May 20, 1959; Federation of United Namarco Distributors v. National Marketing Corporation, L-17819 and National Marketing Corporation v. Tan, L-17768, March 31, 1962; Astraquillo v. Javier, Et Al., L-20034, January 30, 1965; Ledesma v. Teodoro 98, Phil. 232; 52 Off. Gaz. 7634, Alliance Insurance & Surety Co. v. Tan, 52 Off. Gaz. 7634; Buenaventura v. Peña, 44 Off. Gaz. 4923; Valdez v. Querubin, 37 Phil. 774.




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






April-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18127 April 5, 1967 - IN RE: CORAZON ADOLFO CALDERON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19726 April 13, 1967 - DOMINGO IMPERIAL v. VENANCIO P. ZIGA

  • G.R. Nos. L-24235-36 April 18, 1967 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20215 April 24, 1967 - DIONISIO PEREZ v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

  • G.R. Nos. L-20246-48 April 24, 1967 - JORGE VYTIACO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22591 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: ANG CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23102 April 24, 1967 - CECILIO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 & L-16256 April 24, 1967 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-17599 April 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NICOLAS CUNANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19606 April 24, 1967 - BUENAVENTURA TAN v. HON. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23387 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: LIM SIH BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23611 April 24, 1967 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22310 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: TAN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22500 April 24, 1967 - NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23855 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: WONG CHUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23390 April 24, 1967 - MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORP. v. MCDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION CO. OF FLORIDA

  • A.C. No. 561 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON

  • G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO AYOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18911 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CLEOFE RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-19425 April 27, 1967 - DEMOSTHENES MEDIANTE, ET AL. v. HON. MONTANO ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-20083 April 27, 1967 - CRISOSTOMO BONILLA, ET AL. v. SEC. OF AGRI. & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20338 April 27, 1967 - BANAGAN LUMIGUIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20408 April 27, 1967 - NARCISO SOLANCHO v. JOSEFA RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20623 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: LAW TAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20797 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21118 April 27, 1967 - LEON CLIMACO v. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21724 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22409 April 27, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22625 April 27, 1967 - FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22688 April 27, 1967 - UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22819 April 27, 1967 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23932 April 27, 1967 - ABELARDO BUENO v. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-24037 April 27, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23766 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE C. TAYENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23734 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SABIO

  • G.R. No. L-23676 April 27, 1967 - TAN GUAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19475 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: JIMMY CHUA YANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25467 April 27, 1967 - LUCAS V. CAUTON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967 - SIMEON SADAYA v. FRANCISCO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-19570 April 27, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20195 April 27, 1967 - HEIRS OF JULIAN MOLINA, ET AL. v. HONORIA VDA. DE BACUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20886 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. ASSOCIATED FINANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 April 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21113 April 27, 1967 - MIGUEL OCAMPO v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21550 April 27, 1967 - ALFREDO DIAZ v. LUIS MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21705 April 27, 1967 - NAWASA v. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22515 April 27, 1967 - EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23377 April 27, 1967 - CARLOS KAHN, ET AL. v. JACOBO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26558 April 27, 1967 - AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20701 April 27, 1967 - MARIA L. VDA. DE MlSA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MARKETING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22650 April 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.