Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > April 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25596 April 28, 1983 - CLARA E. VDA. DE SAYMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

206 Phil. 567:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-25596. April 28, 1983.]

LARA E. VDA. DE SAYMAN, ANACORITA S. DE MACAYRA, OSIAS E. SAYMAN, Heirs of the Late IGNACIO SAYMAN, FAUSTINA VDA. DE SAYMAN, As Guardian Ad Litim of the Minor Illegitimate Children of the Late DEMOCRITO SAYMAN, Namely, IMELDA, CORAZON, RUBEN, and DEMOCRITO, JR., All Surnamed, SAYMAN, ADELE CRISOLOGO, CONSEJO VDA. DE MANGOB, Mother of the Late POTENCIANO VDA. DE ODO, PRESCILLA ODO DE MASINADING, ANITA, JACINTO, ENRIQUITO and CONCEPCION, All Surnamed CASTRO, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS A. GO THONG & CO., INC., Respondents.

Lucinio Sayman, for Petitioners.

Quisumbing & Quisumbing Law Offices for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS A PRELUDE TO CERTIORARI; NOT ABSOLUTE; CASE AT BAR. — It is true that as a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have committed. The said requirement is not absolute and may be dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the same point stated in the motion (Fortitch Cildran v. Cildran, 19 SCRA 502), or where the error is patent for the order is void (Ilagan Electric Light Company v. Public Service Commission, 10 SCRA 46; Matute v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 768; Locsin v. Limaco, 26 SCRA 816); or where the relief is extremely urgent, as in cases where execution had already been ordered (Suco v. Vda. de Leary, 12 SCRA 326) or where the issue raised is one purely of law (Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307). In the case at bar, the question of whether a writ of execution may issue under the circumstances obtaining is purely one of law, and the need for urgent relief therefrom is patent from the fact that the trial court had already issued a writ for the execution of the judgment complained of in the petition for relief. Moreover, it is not completely accurate to claim that the trial court was deprived of a chance to correct its error by the failure to file a motion for the reconsideration of the questioned order. As pointed out by the private respondent, it filed a motion for the reconsideration of the first order of execution dated April 8, 1965. A second opportunity to consider the objection of the private respondent to the writ of execution was granted by the trial court in connection with the petition for relief filed on May 30, 1965 in which the private respondent had prayed for a stay of the execution of judgment.

2. ID.; JUDGMENT; WRIT OF EXECUTION; ISSUANCE NOT POSSIBLE IN THE PRESENCE OF PETITION FOR RELIEF. — The second and third contentions of the petitioners boil down to the question of whether a writ of execution may be issued despite the pendency of a petition for relief against the judgment sought to been forced. It is the rule that when a petition for relief is filed, the court may issue "preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending the proceeding." (Section 5, Rule 38, Rules of Court).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON ENFORCEMENT FOR BEING PREMATURE NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — The judgment of the trial court the enforcement of which is sought to be restrained has not yet attained the status of being beyond modification or reversal. Hence, the enforcement of the same at this stage of the proceeding is premature. In the least, to stop its execution as was ordered by the respondent Court of Appeals may not be categorized as a grave abuse of discretion.


R E S O L U T I O N


VASQUEZ, J.:


This case is intimately related with G. R. Nos. L-29479 and L-29716 which involve the same parties and which arose from the same two cases filed in the trial court between the same parties herein, Our decision in which was promulgated on February 21, 1983.

The subject-matter of the instant proceeding is the writ of execution issued by the trial court to enforce its judgment after the same became final and executory, but during the pendency of a petition for relief from the same. The said order of execution was brought to the respondent Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari. In a decision of said court promulgated on December 14, 1965, the writ of execution issued by the trial court was annulled and set aside. The said decision of the Court of Appeals is the subject of the petition for certiorari in the instant proceeding.

The petitioners assail the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals on three (3) principal grounds, namely, (1) the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals should not have been entertained inasmuch as the private respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration of the order of execution in the trial court; (2) the trial judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the execution of its judgment; and (3) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the mere filing of the petition for relief will justify the stay of execution of the judgment complained of.

It is true that as a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have committed. The said requirements is not absolute and may be dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the same point stated in the motion (Fortitch Cildran v. Cildran, 19 SCRA 502), or where the error is patent for the order is void (Iligan Electric Light Company v. Public Service Commission, 10 SCRA 46; Matute v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 768; Locsin v. Limaco, 26 SCRA 816); or where the relief is extremely urgent, as in cases where execution had already been ordered (Suco v. Vda. de Leary, 12 SCRA 326); or where the issue raised is one purely of law (Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In the case at bar, the question of whether a writ of execution may issue under the circumstances obtaining is purely one of law, and the need for urgent relief therefrom is patent from the fact that the trial court had already issued a writ for the execution of the judgment complained of in the petition for relief. Moreover, it is not completely accurate to claim that the trial court was deprived of a chance to correct its error by the failure to file a motion for the reconsideration of the questioned order. As pointed out by the private respondent, it filed a motion for the reconsideration of the first order of execution dated April 8, 1965. A second opportunity to consider the objection of the private respondent to the writ of execution was granted by the trial court in connection with the petition for relief on May 30, 1965 in which the private respondent bad prayed for a stay of the execution of judgment.

The second and third contentions of the petitioners boil down to the question of whether a writ of execution may be issued despite the pendency of a petition for relief against the judgment sought to be enforced. It is the rule that when a petition for relief is filed, the court may issue "preliminary injunction as may be necessary or the preservation of the rights of the parties pending the proceeding." (Section 5, Rule 38, Rules of Court.) As pointed out aptly by the respondent Court of Appeals:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"x       x       x

What the respondents entirely overlook is the fact that the order denying the petition for relief is appealable to this Court and the judgment on the merits may be assailed in the appeal on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence and/or is contrary to law (Sec. 2, 2nd paragraph, Rule 41). If so appealable, its supervisory power may be exercised for the purpose of preventing the premature and unjust execution of a judgment. If the writ of execution were allowed to take its course, the appeal might be rendered illusory and the decision thereon, should it be favorable to appellant, nugatory, . . ., . . ." (Annex "1", Decision, pp. 12-13, Rollo.)

It is to be further noted that in G. R. Nos. L-29479 and L-29716, the right of the private respondent to seek a review of the decision of the trial court in connection with its appeal from the denial of the petition for relief was sustained. The possibility which the respondent Court of Appeals seeks to guard against still exists in greater likelihood. The judgment of the trial court the enforcement of which is sought to be restrained has not yet attained the status of being beyond modification or reversal. Hence, the enforcement of the same at this stage of the proceeding is premature. In the least, to stop its execution as was ordered by the respondent Court of Appeals may not be categorized as a grave abuse of discretion.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED. With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, 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






April-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-36111 April 14, 1983 - MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-30067 April 19, 1983 - B.F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. v. TEOFILO REYES, SR.

    206 Phil. 291

  • G.R. No. L-27247 April 20, 1983 - IN RE: BAGUIO CITIZENS ACTION, INC. v. CITY COUNCIL, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-31216 April 20, 1983 - CLARO FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32370 & 32767 April 20, 1983 - SIERRA MADRE TRUST v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO NARVAEZ

    206 Phil. 314

  • G.R. No. L-33768 April 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTUTO URSAL

    206 Phil. 333

  • G.R. No. L-37120 April 20, 1983 - VICTORINO D. MAGAT v. LEO D. MEDIALDEA, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 341

  • G.R. No. L-44096 April 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL A. MORALES

    206 Phil. 350

  • G.R. No. L-50154 April 20, 1983 - TAN TOK LEE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF KALOOKAN CITY, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 361

  • G.R. Nos. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983 - DOLORES VILLAR, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 366

  • G.R. Nos. L-57574 April 20, 1983 - ANTONIO MIRO v. COA, ET AL.

    06 Phil. 387

  • G.R. No. L-61388 April 20, 1983 - IN RE: JOSEFINA GARCIA-PADILLA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 392

  • A.C. No. 1724 April 26, 1983 - FLAVIANA NAVA v. CESAR PALMA

    206 Phil. 462

  • A.C. No. L-61016 April 26, 1983 - HORACIO MORALES v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL

    06 Phil. 466

  • G.R. No. L-61259 April 26, 1983 - LIONS CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-36342 April 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CITY COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH XI, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 555

  • G.R. No. L-25486 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR GAMAYON, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 560

  • G.R. No. L-25596 April 28, 1983 - CLARA E. VDA. DE SAYMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 567

  • G.R. No. L-30896 April 28, 1983 - JOSE O. SIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    206 Phil. 571

  • G.R. No. L-31831 April 28, 1983 - JESUS PINEDA v. JOSE V. DELA RAMA, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 586

  • G.R. No. L-33491 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO S. TINIO, JR.

    206 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-33744 April 28, 1983 - CLETO P. EVANGELISTA v. GABINO R. SEPULVEDA

    206 Phil. 598

  • G.R. No. L-35855 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 601

  • G.R. No. L-36506 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO NAVARRO

    206 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. L-36806 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO MACASABWANG, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 617

  • G.R. No. L-38971 April 28, 1983 - LEELIN MARKETING CORPORATION v. C & S AGRO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-41077 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44100 April 28, 1983 - SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION v. CENTRO LA PAZ

    206 Phil. 643

  • G.R. No. L-44337 April 28, 1983 - ALEJANDRO DEPOSITARIO v. CLAUDIO HERVIAS

    206 Phil. 651

  • G.R. No. L-45885 April 28, 1983 - JULIAN MENDOZA v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 654

  • G.R. No. L-46340 April 28, 1983 - SWEET LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 663

  • G.R. No. L-50877 April 28, 1983 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 670

  • G.R. No. L-53475 April 28, 1983 - APOLINARIO R. ESQUIVEL v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 678

  • G.R. No. L-55187 April 28, 1983 - LEVI A. LEDESMA, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN JAVELLANA

    206 Phil. 685

  • G.R. No. L-55830 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO CHAVEZ

    206 Phil. 692

  • G.R. No. L-56379 April 28, 1983 - EDIQUILLO CUALES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 697

  • G.R. No. L-57195 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO D. PARAS

    206 Phil. 704

  • G.R. No. L-57865 April 28, 1983 - ROMEO OLIVA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 712

  • G.R. No. L-60055 April 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO M. SANTOS

    206 Phil. 716

  • G.R. No. L-60232-34 April 28, 1983 - EVA ESTRADA-KALAW, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. TENSUAN, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 730

  • G.R. No. L-61958 April 28, 1983 - PLUTARCO YUSI, ET AL. v. LETICIA P. MORALES, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 734

  • G.R. No. L-62063 April 28, 1983 - NORBERTO GERONIMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 740

  • G.R. No. L-62482 April 28, 1983 - ROLANDO CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 745

  • G.R. No. L-62820 April 28, 1983 - PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

    206 Phil. 748

  • G.R. No. L-36478 April 29, 1983 - IN RE: CESAR YU v. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

    206 Phil. 754

  • G.R. No. L-28207 April 29, 1983 - LEONORA S. PALMA v. JOSE F, ORETA, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 752

  • G.R. No. L-60335 April 29, 1983 - DOLORES VASQUEZ VDA. DE ARROYO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    206 Phil. 759