Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > June 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-38701 June 30, 1975 - BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-38701. June 30, 1975.]

BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Formerly Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft), THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, DEPUTY SHERIFF MARINO V. CACHERO OF QUEZON CITY, AXEL REICHMANN, ATTY. NORBERTO S. GONZALES, and DOMINGO G. FORONDA, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE ENRIQUE A. AGANA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, QUEZON CITY BRANCH XXVIII, SAN FRANCISCO OIL & PAINT CO., INC., and ISIDORO GALVANIZED AND STEEL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-38801. June 30, 1975.]

SAN FRANCISCO OIL & PAINT CO., INC. and ISIDORO GALVANIZED AND STEEL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Petitioners, v. BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Formerly Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft), THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, DEPUTY SHERIFF MARINO V. CACHERO OF QUEZON CITY, ATTY. NORBERTO S. GONZALES, and THE HONORABLE VICENTE G. ERICTA, As Presiding Judge of Branch XVIII-Quezon City of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


In this resolution, the Court denied for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration of Bayer Philippines, Inc. Et. Al., for its failure to consider that the validity of respondent judge’s order of May 9,1974 in Civil Case No. Q-14029 was necessarily placed in issue by the pleadings in two cases at bar; for asking the Court to resolve the issue whether summons were properly served on them when the question is still pending before the court a quo and, therefore, premature; and for contending that the lifting of the sheriff’s levy rendered the resolution of the questions of ownership and damages over the properties in Civil Case No. Q-18881 moot and academic, when the court a quo could still proceed with the trial and decide said questions.

Motion for reconsideration denied.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; QUESTION PENDING RESOLUTION BEFORE COURT A QUO — It would be premature for the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari to resolve a question that is still pending resolution before the court a quo.

2. JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; THIRD PARTY CLAIMS WHERE DECIDED. — Where a court directs the sheriff to execute its judgment, and in pursuance thereof the sheriff levied on properties found in the premises of third-party claimants who, asserting ownership over the properties, filed an action in another court praying for issuance of injunction to restrain the sheriff, the lifting of the sheriff’s levy does not render the question of ownership and damages over the properties moot and academic, since the Court issuing the writ of execution cannot decide the question of ownership between the judgment creditor and the third party claimant, which question shall have to be decided by the court where the third party claim was filed, and the judgment creditor is not precluded from securing from the second court appropriate orders for the protection of its interests.


R E S O L U T I O N


ANTONIO, J.:


The motion for reconsideration of Bayer Philippines, Inc., Et Al., fails to consider that the validity of the Order of respondent Judge dated May 9, 1974 in Civil Case No. Q-14029, which declared that the third-party claimants were "mere conduits" of the judgment debtor, and, consequently, authorized the Sheriff to break open the gate to the premises at No. 18 Judge Juan Luna Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, to bring the properties therein and to sell them at public auction, and adjudicated in effect the ownership of the properties levied by the Sheriff in favor of the judgment debtor, was necessarily placed in issue by the pleadings in the cases at bar. The thrust of the allegations of petitioners in L-38801 and private respondents in L-38701 was precisely to impugn the authority of said respondent Judge in the proceedings for the execution of the judgment (Civil Case No. Q-14029) to decide the question of ownership over the properties claimed by the third-party claimants, as it is their view that the said question should be resolved in the separate and independent civil action instituted for such purpose by the claimants, pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 39 of the Rules. There is no question that this Order of May 9, 1974 in Civil Case No. Q-14029 is the basis of the Order of respondent Judge dated June 10, 1974 (Annex "B") and of the Sheriff’s Notice of Sale dated June 11, 1974 (Annex "C") which are also sought to be annulled.

Contrary to the claim of movants, the other Orders adverted to which were annulled in the judgment of this Court referred to those issued by the respondent Judge in the Civil Case No. Q-14029 to implement his Order of May 9, 1974. As to the contention of movants that this Court should decide whether or not Bayer Philippines, Inc., Et Al., as defendants in Civil Case No. Q-18881, were properly served with summons, it is sufficient to state that this question is still pending resolution before the court a quo. Until that question is resolved by said court, it would be premature to rule on that question in these cases.

Neither does the lifting of the Sheriff’s levy render the resolution of the question of ownership and damages over the properties in Civil Case No. Q-18881 moot and academic. It must be recalled that the properties in question were taken by the Sheriff from the premises of the third-party claimants, despite the trial court’s restraining order of May 16, 1974 in Civil Case No. Q-18881. This action of the Sheriff was predicated upon Judge Ericta’s Order of May 20, 1974 in Civil Case No. Q-14029, directing the Quezon City Sheriff to proceed with the implementation of his Order of May 9, 1974. In view of Our ruling that Judge Ericta cannot decide the question of ownership in Civil Case No. Q-14029, there is, therefore, no legal basis for said order. In any event, the court a quo, in Civil Case No. Q-18881, could still proceed with the trial therein and decide the question of ownership and damages. During the pendency of said case, Bayer Philippines, Inc., Et. Al. are not precluded from securing from said court appropriate orders for the protection of their interests.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration should be, as it is hereby, DENIED for lack of merit.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino 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






June-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 145 CFI June 11, 1975 - VICENTE A. CASTRO v. VICENTE P. BULLECER

  • A.C. No. 223-J June 11, 1975 - ROMEO S. PEREZ v. CARLOS ABIERA

  • G.R. No. L-25650 June 11, 1975 - ISIDORA L. CABALIW, ET AL. v. SOTERO SADORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31225 June 11, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SAMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-31284 June 11, 1975 - SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 207-MJ June 19, 1975 - PRISCA B. ARAZA v. JUANITO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26183 June 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL N. SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-32281 June 19, 1975 - PEDRO ERMAC v. CENON MEDELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37630 June 19, 1975 - CATALINO LACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24971 June 20, 1975 - GREGORIO TAN, JR. v. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39254 June 20, 1975 - CENON C. SOLIS, ET AL. v. JAIME R. AGLORO

  • A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975 - HADJIRUL TAHIL v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • A.M. No. 667 MJ June 27, 1975 - PAULINO B. INTING v. GERTRUDES F. BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23419 June 27, 1975 - BEJAMIN SEBIAL v. ROBERTA SEBIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26358 June 27, 1975 - DONATO LOPEZ, JR. v. CFI OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30037 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. L-30050 June 27, 1975 - CESAR B. VILLANUEVA v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31447 June 27, 1975 - AURELIO R. BANZON v. FEDERICO L. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33138-39 June 27, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38532 June 27, 1975 - ANTIPOLO HIGHWAY LINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38826 June 27, 1975 - TEOTIMO ALAURIN, ET AL. v. JOSE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 - IN RE: FELIX BALANAY, JR. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39423 & L-39684 June 27, 1975 - JUAN C. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39800 June 27, 1975 - ROMEO N. HERNANDEZ v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40415 June 27, 1975 - PEDRO E. GAHOL v. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. L-40683 June 27, 1975 - ARTURO SAMONTE, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO SAMONTE, ET AL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 201 MJ June 30, 1975 - CECILIA A. DE LA PAZ v. SANTIAGO INUTAN

  • A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975 - SANTIAGO PALADIN v. ARTURO V. MIRALLES

  • A.M. No. 267 MJ June 30, 1975 - RAFAEL SALCEDO v. DAVID ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22805 & L-27858 June 30, 1975 - WONDER MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25649 June 30, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25965 June 30, 1975 - AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26502 June 30, 1975 - ROSARIO M. PONCE ENRILE v. ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-27044 & L-27452 June 30, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28773 June 30, 1975 - FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. L-29837 June 30, 1975 - STA. ANA HARDWARE & CO. v. "Y" SHIPPING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-30489 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MACASO

  • G.R. No. L-31953 June 30, 1975 - REYNALDO ALARAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33641 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-37106 June 30, 1975 - JOSE M. LONTOC v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-37844 June 30, 1975 - PATRICIO ALCANTARA, JR. v. CASTRENCE C. VELOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38701 June 30, 1975 - BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39046 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANIO ANIN, ET AL.