Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > July 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39324 July 16, 1975 - CATALINO MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39324. July 16, 1975.]

CATALINO MAGDANGAL, BUENAVENTURA SENECIO, ALBERTO DOREN, ALFREDO SOBLANO, SR., FEDERICO SUMAYLO, JR., and BERNARDO SOBLANO, Petitioners, v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Bacolod City, Respondents.

Rosario R. Rapanut, for Petitioners.

Hilado Hilado for Private Respondent.

Rodolfo J. Herman for respondent The Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental.

SYNOPSIS


The workers’ union to which the petitioners belong and respondent company entered into an amicable settlement whereby all the petitioners (plus six other employees) waived their right to reinstatement in the company which agreed to pay all of them a total sum of P70,000, P65,000 of which was payable immediately and the balance of P5,000 payable "after the individual complainants have all vacated the company houses" they were occupying as employees. In view of petitioners’ failure to vacate notwithstanding their receipt of their shares in the sum of P65,000, the company filed an ejectment suit in the Court of First Instance which resolved the case in its favor. The judgment having become final, the corresponding writ of execution was issued. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari alleging that: (1) they only received P43,984.50 out of the P65,000; (2) that the compromise agreement could be interpreted to mean that each of them is entitled to P70,000 or a sum total of P840,000: (3) that the result of the CIR Case No. 160-ULP, an unfair labor case filed by its union against the company, its supervisors and rival union back in 1967, should be awaited before they could be ejected: and (4) that the ejectment suit should filed in the city court.

The Supreme Court finding the contentions of petitioners baseless and applying Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Secs. 44(b) and 88 of the Judiciary Law, dismissed the petition.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; CFI JURISDICTION OVER UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES. — A Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action where more than one year had elapsed from the last day of the thirty-day period when the occupants were supposed to vacate the premises in question (Sec. 1, Rule 70, of Court and Sec. 44(b) and 88, Judiciary Law.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EJECTMENT PROPER IN CASE AT BAR. — Notwithstanding the payment of P65,000 gratuity to petitioners by respondent company in compliance with its amicable settlement, petitioners refused to vacate the company houses as agreed upon alleging that their ejectment should await the outcome of a case filed by the union against the company and a rival union. HELD: The contention is baseless since the case for unfair labor practice alluded to has nothing to do with petitioners’ employment status and since by compromise agreement the petitioners have agreed to vacate company houses.

3. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; ALLEGATIONS NOT BORNE OUT BY STIPULATIONS THEREOF DO NOT DESERVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. — Where the compromise agreement provides that the company would pay the total sum of P70,000 to the complainants, P65,000 of which was a payable immediately and the balance of P5,000 payable "after the individual complainants and their families shall have vacated the company houses," it cannot thereafter be alleged that the complainants were entitled to P70,000 each or to a total sum of P840,000 under said amicable settlement.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; DEFENDANTS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the dependants were represented by counsel who did not controvert the company’s memorandum to the effect that the latter had complied with the terms of the amicable settlement and had paid the twelve strikers their retirement gratuity nor disputed the correctness of a pre-trial order that only the testimony a certain witness would be received and the actual disposition of the ten criminal cases against the six defendants would be taken up, the proceeding in the lower court having been fair and regular, the defendants cannot allege that they were not heard nor that they were denied due process.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Catalino Magdangal, Buenaventura Senecio, Alberto Doren, Alfredo Soblano, Sr., Bernardo Soblano and Federico Sumaylo, Jr. filed this special civil action of certiorari (it may be treated as a prohibition action) in order to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution dated July 24, 1973 which was issued against them by Hon. Judge Rafael C. Climaco in Civil Case No. 493 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City.

The writ of execution was intended to enforce the final judgment in the said case dated January 26, 1973. In that judgment Judge Climaco ordered the six petitioners to vacate the houses occupied by them in the compound of Hawaiian-Philippine Company. Each of them was required to pay a monthly rental of one hundred fifty pesos from September 8, 1971 when the ejectment complaint was filed.

We gave due course to the petition so as to find out if any injustice was perpetrated against the six petitioners, former employees of the company, and to dispel the notion that the law grinds the faces of the poor and that the rich rule the law. The petitioners were allowed to sue in forma pauperis. Miss Rosario R. Rapanut, a special attorney of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, was directed to file (and she did file) a memorandum for the petitioners.

We find that, far from having been oppressed by the company, the six petitioners were able to prolong unduly their occupancy of the company houses. They might have prejudiced the other employees who deserved to enjoy free housing and whom the petitioners had prevented from enjoying that benefit.

The antecedents of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Hawaiian-Philippine Company is the owner of a sugar central doing business at Silay City. It had a collective bargaining agreement with the Congress of Independent Organizations (CIO-ALU) with which its workers were affiliated. Due to an alleged unfair labor practice committed by the company, the union declared a strike on April 19, 1968. Among those who joined the strike were the six petitioners herein who were officers of the union and who were presumably dismissed. Some months later, the union informed the company that it would terminate the strike and it requested the reinstatement of the twelve striking workers. The company refused to allow them to return to work.

At the instance of the union and the twelve strikers, a prosecutor filed against the company in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a complaint for unfair labor practice dated February 5, 1969, Case No. 5240-ULP. That case was settled amicably. The settlement was embodied in a formal agreement dated November 5, 1969 which was signed by the company’s manager and counsel, the union president and legal counsel, and the twelve strikers (among whom were the six petitioners herein). It was attested by the CIR Commissioner assigned to hear the case.

Under that agreement the twelve individual complaints waived their claim for reinstatement and were considered retired from their employment in the company which agreed to pay all of them to total sum of P70,000, of which the sum of P65,000 was payable immediately and the balance of P5,000 would be payable "after the individual complainants and their families shall have all vacated the company houses" which they had been occupying as employees. The twelve workers bound themselves to vacate the houses "within thirty days" from the signing of the agreement.

It was also stipulated in the agreement that the check for P65,000 would be issued in the name of Zoilo V. de la Cruz, Jr., the union president and legal counsel, that the company would have no further liability after the delivery of the check to Atty. De la Cruz and that the twelve complainants and their counsel assumed the responsibility of partitioning the said amount among themselves.

CIR Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, acting upon the parties’ joint motion, approved the amicable settlement and ordered the dismissal of Case No. 5240-ULP in his order dated January 13, 1970.

In view of the failure of the six petitioners to vacate the company houses notwithstanding their receipt of their shares in the sum of P65,000, the company on September 8, 1971 filed an ejectment suit against them in the Court of First Instance at Silay City (Civil Case No. 493). In their answer they set up the defense that by reason of the pendency of CIR Case No. 160-ULP-Iloilo, a case for unfair labor practice filed in 1967 by the union against the company, its supervisors and a rival union known as Visayan Area Labor Organization (Valor), they (the petitioners herein or the defendants in the ejectment suit) were still employees of the company. They further alleged that they were working in the commissary store with the company’s acquiescence. (According to the company the commissary store is run by the union and does not belong to the company).

Judge Climaco in his aforementioned decision found that CIR Case No. 160-ULP-Iloilo does not involve the employment status of the six defendants; that, by reason of the compromise in CIR Case No. 5240-ULP, the defendants had agreed to vacate the company houses, and that they had already been paid the corresponding retirement gratuity. Hence, as already noted, he ordered their ejectment from the company houses.

Counsel for the company manifested in the lower court on July 16, 1973 that the balance of P5,000 would be paid to defendants’ counsel as part of their retirement benefits as soon as they vacated the houses in question. Inasmuch as the judgment had become final, the corresponding writ of execution was issued.

The issue is whether Judge Climaco erred in ordering the ejectment of the petitioners from the company houses. In their memorandum they alleged that out of the P65,000, the twelve strikers received only P43,894.50 and that the compromise agreement could be interpreted to mean that each of them was entitled to receive P70,000 each as retirement pay. In their petition they argued that before they could be ejected the resolution of CIR Case No. 160-ULP-Iloilo should be awaited.

The company in its memorandum dated June 9, 1975 manifested that eleven of the twelve strikers had already vacated the company houses and that only petitioner Catalino Magdangal (allegedly the incumbent union president) is occupying the company house allotted to him.

We hold that the petition is devoid of merit. The contention that the lower court had no jurisdiction because the ejectment suit should have been filed in the city court is not well-taken. As correctly pointed out by the company, the unlawful detainer action was filed on September 8, 1971 in the Court of First Instance because more than one year had elapsed from the last day of the thirty-day period when the petitioners were supposed to vacate the company houses (See sec. 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court and secs. 44[b] and 88, Judiciary Law).

Petitioners’ pretension that their ejectment should await the outcome of CIR Case No. 160-ULP-Iloilo is baseless. That case has nothing to do with their employment status. Equally baseless is petitioners’ contention that the company had not completed the payment of the sum of P65,000.

Alfredo Soblano’s allegation that the twelve strikers were entitled to the total sum of P840,000 under the amicable settlement is not borne out by the stipulations thereof. His gripe that the defendants were not heard in the ejectment case does not deserve serious consideration. They were represented by counsel. They were bound by his actuations. As noted by the trial court, the defendants’ counsel did not controvert the averments in the company’s memorandum that it had complied with the terms of the amicable settlement and had paid to the twelve strikers their retirement gratuity.

In the lower court’s pre-trial order it was clearly spelled out that, at the trial, only the testimony of a certain Filoteo would be received and the actual disposition of the ten criminal cases against the six defendants would be taken up. Their counsel did not dispute the correctness of that pre-trial order. The proceedings in the lower court were fair and regular. The defendants were not denied due process of law. The lower court had jurisdiction to order the execution of its judgment.

The trial court’s decision had long become final. Its execution is a matter of right. This is not a case where facts and circumstances had transpired which render the execution of the judgment impossible or which justify the postponement of the writ of execution (2 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 260).

The question of why out of the P65,000 the twelve strikers received only P43,894.50 is an intra-union matter which was not involved in the ejectment case. The undeniable fact is that the sum of P65,000 was paid by the company to Atty. De la Cruz as stipulated in the amicable settlement.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., 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






July-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30736 July 11, 1975 - LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT ON APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28017 July 15, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL. v. WILLIAM PFLEIDER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30543 July 15, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO CAWILI

  • G.R. No. L-30727 July 15, 1975 - CITY OF OZAMIZ v. SERAPIO S. LUMAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34897 July 15, 1975 - RAUL ARELLANO v. CFI OF SORSOGON, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37312 July 15, 1975 - MARCOS B. COMILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37662 July 15, 1975 - RCPI v. PHIL. COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39721 July 15, 1975 - BRAULIO BERNABE v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-39324 July 16, 1975 - CATALINO MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-15 July 17, 1975 - ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. EULALIO JUANSON

  • A.M. No. P-55 July 17, 1975 - ESPERANZA SARMIENTO v. FLORENCIO M. DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. L-37645 July 17, 1975 - JESUS L. SANTOS v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-38137 July 17, 1975 - JOSE M. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65120 July 18, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO

  • A.M. No. 32-MJ July 18, 1975 - LEON FRANADA, ET AL. v. VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-107 July 18, 1975 - ANTONIO PALAFOX, JR. v. CHARITO AKUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22375 July 18, 1975 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. PLASTIC ERA CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24754 July 18, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. P. J. KIENER COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29678 July 18, 1975 - JOSEFINA LODOVICA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39381 July 18, 1975 - FELISA LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 72-MJ July 22, 1975 - IGMEDIO T. LI v. JOSE H. MIJARES

  • A.M. No. P-105 July 22, 1975 - AUREA G. PEÑALOSA v. LIGAYA P SALAYON

  • A.M. No. P-167 July 22, 1975 - ALFREDO T. MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO C. ECLAVEA

  • A.M. No. P-202 July 22, 1975 - RENE P. RAMOS v. MOISES R. RADA

  • A.M. No. T-344 July 22, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO P. TONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-25012 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26544 July 22, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28853 July 22, 1975 - BICOL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. G. S. CUYUGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28905 July 22, 1975 - TIU PO v. LILY LIM TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28967 July 22, 1975 - AMELIA G. TIBLE v. JOSE C. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-30477 July 22, 1975 - CRESCENTE VICTORINO v. FELIX ELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30915 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31150 July 22, 1915

    KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37635 July 22, 1975 - CRESENCIO MARTINEZ v. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-38196 July 22, 1975 - FEDERICO PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39677 July 22, 1975 - INTER-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39990 July 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL LICERA

  • A.M. No. P-1 July 25, 1975 - CIRILO TINAHA v. BENJAMIN MARAVILLA

  • A.M. No. 301-MJ July 25, 1975 - PABLO FETALINO v. CESAR L. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. 306-MJ July 25, 1975 - MONICA SARMIENTO v. RAYMUNDO R. CRUZ

  • A.C. No. 532-MJ July 25, 1975 - PAULA S. QUIZON, ET. AL. v. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR.

  • A.C. No. 610-MJ July 25, 1975 - GEORGE P. SUAN v. DELSANTO RESUELLO

  • A.C. No. 936 July 25, 1975 - FERMINA LEGASPI DAROY, ET AL. v. RAMON CHAVES LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-19462 July 25, 1975 - ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA v. ENRIQUE A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22781 July 25, 1975 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24917 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975 - ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26872 July 25, 1975 - VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27408 July 25, 1975 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28271 July 25, 1975 - SMITH, BELL & CO. (PHIL.), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-28399 July 25, 1975 - COMPANIA MARITIMA, ET AL. v. UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30343 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO MENGOTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31460 July 25, 1975 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33502 July 25, 1975 - FEDERICO CABREJAS, ET AL. v. LUIS P. DONGALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34952 July 25, 1975 - RAMON D. BAGATSING, ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38135 July 25, 1975 - HILARIO C. ANTONIO v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38624 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40511 July 25, 1975 - MARA, INC. v. JUSTINIANO C. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40879 July 25, 1975 - IN RE: MAXIMO PAMPLONA v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF CALAMBA

  • G.R. No. L-22006 July 28, 1975 - BASILIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21231 July 30, 1975 - CONCORDIA LALUAN, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO MALPAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975 - EUSEBIO B. GARCIA v. ERNESTO S. MATA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-143 July 31, 1975 - IN RE: APOLINAR O. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 392 July 31, 1975 - LUISA DE NACIONAL v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • A.C. No. 775 July 31, 1975 - BENJAMIN BAYOT v. JESUS R. BLANCA

  • A.M. No. 866-CJ July 31, 1975 - MIGUEL AGlLADA v. ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY

  • A.M. No. 899-MJ July 31, 1975 - MELQUIADES UDANI, JR. v. ALFONSO T. PAGHARION

  • A.C. No. 1236 July 31, 1975 - BERNARDA ARGANA v. VIRGILIO ANZ. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22493 July 31, 1975 - ISLAND SALES, INC. v. UNITED PIONEERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23035 July 31, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC. v. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26363 July 31, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26478-79 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF ANSELMA TUGADI, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN v. HEIRS OF LARUAN

  • G.R. No. L-30822 July 31, 1975 - EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31685 July 31, 1975 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. IMELDA R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-35377-78 July 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO PILOTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36424 July 31, 1975 - INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. LORENZO RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38224 July 31, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38388 July 31, 1975 - GABRIEL LOQUIAS v. CESARIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38577 July 31, 1975 - C.K. SAN v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40403 July 31, 1975 - RUPERTA CONSTANTINO v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40796 July 31, 1975 - REPUBLIC BANK v. MAURICIA T. EBRADA