ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 150245. June 21, 2006]

JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUSTICE RAMON MABUTAS, JR. AND PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW THE EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.)

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated JUNE 21, 2006

G.R. No. 150245 (Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro versus Hon. Court of Appeals, Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Philippine Commercial International Bank (now the Equitable PCI Bank, Inc.)

This petition for certiorari assails the Resolution [1] cralaw dated October 16, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61963, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Decision [2] cralaw and Order [3] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61, in Civil Case No. 97-2471.

The present controversy started when private respondent PCI Bank filed against petitioner, Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro, a complaint for a sum of money amounting to P 18 million with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

Upon posting of bond, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioner. However, the RTC later issued an Order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment. Hence, petitioner filed a claim on the attachment bond and presented evidence of damages allegedly suffered due to the erroneous attachment.

The RTC, in its assailed Decision, awarded petitioner damages amounting to P 25 million, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises above considered, and defendant having duly established his claim for damages in the amount of P25,000,000.00, judgment is hereby rendered ordering Prudential Guarantee & Insurance Co., which is solidarily liable with plaintiff to pay defendant the full amount of bond under Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL(4) No. 01081, dated 24 October 1997 in the amount of P18,798,734.69. And, considering that the amount of the bond is insufficient to fully satisfy the award for damages, plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay defendant the amount of P6,201,265.31.

SO ORDERED. [4] cralaw

PCIBank moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. PCIBank then filed with the RTC a notice of appeal. Meanwhile, petitioner moved for execution pending appeal, which motion was granted by the RTC in its assailed Order.

PCIBank then filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. The CA issued a Resolution temporarily restraining the enforcement of the aforequoted Decision of the RTC and of the writ of execution pending appeal.

However, upon motion of petitioner, the RTC issued a fresh writ of execution pending appeal. Hence, in its assailed Resolution dated October 16, 2001, the CA ruled thus:

Meanwhile, in order not to render ineffectual whatever order/judgment may be rendered on the merits of this case, the Court resolves to approve the alternative supersedeas bond posted by the petitioner on February 9, 2001, which was issued by Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (Bond Serial G[16] No. 29131) in the amount of twenty-five million pesos, Philippine currency, (P25,000,000.00). Consequently, as prayed for, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued -- ordering the respondents herein and all those acting for or through them to cease and desist from enforcing, implementing or otherwise acting on and giving effect to the public respondent's assailed judgment, dated August 30, 2000, and the order, dated November 23, 2000, allowing execution pending appeal which is the subject of this petition, pending the termination of this litigation, unless and until a contrary resolution is issued by this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. [5] cralaw

Petitioner assails the abovequoted CA Resolution in the instant petition for certiorari raising the following issues:

Whether or not forum shopping was committed by Respondent PCIB in filing subject Petition praying for a writ of prohibition to restrain the enforcement of the judgment dated August 30, 2000 after filing a notice of appeal to said judgment.

Corollary thereto, whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of subject judgment was granted anomalously because of the total lack of factual allegations in support of said relief.

Whether or not subject Resolution dated October 16, 2001 is a decision on the merits of the petition and Petitioner was denied due process of law.

Whether or not Respondent Ponente should be sanctioned for the manifest malice and palpable ignorance of the law in issuing the assailed Resolution. [6] cralaw

Petitioner contends PCIBank engaged in forum shopping when it simultaneously availed of the remedies of appeal and certiorari for the same purpose of enjoining the execution of the subject RTC Decision. Petitioner further submits that the CA Resolution completely disposed of the case effectively reversing the RTC Order granting execution pending appeal, but without stating the facts and the law on which the decision is based. Petitioner proposes that the ponente of the CA Resolution be administratively sanctioned.

PCIBank, however, counters that the instant petition is premature for petitioner's failure to first file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Resolution. PCIBank stresses that its notice of appeal questions the grant of damages for alleged wrongful attachment, while its petition for certiorari impugns the propriety of the writ of execution pending appeal. PCIBank avers it is petitioner who engaged in forum shopping as the instant petition raises the same issues as the petition in the CA.

After carefully weighing the parties' submissions, we resolve to dismiss the petition.

Anent the first issue, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

x x x x

What determines whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes, possibly leading to conflicting decisions upon the same issues. [7] cralaw

In this case, note that the notice of appeal filed by PCIBank questions the RTC's grant of damages for alleged wrongful attachment, while the petition for certiorari it filed in the CA impugns the propriety of the writ of execution pending appeal. Clearly, the appeal and the certiorari involve two distinctly separate issues. Hence, PCIBank cannot be said to have engaged in forum shopping.

Also, contrary to petitioner's claim, PCIBank did not simultaneously avail of appeal and certiorari. Records show that the petition for certiorari was filed long after the notice of appeal was filed, and only after the RTC had ordered execution pending appeal.

With respect to the second issue, we have long held that a judgment on the merits is one rendered after argument and investigation, and when there is a determination as to which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary point. [8] cralaw

The October 16, 2001 Resolution of the CA, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the RTC Decision and against the writ of execution pending appeal, is undoubtedly a judgment upon a preliminary point. The said injunctive writ was merely issued so as not to render ineffectual whatever judgment would be rendered by the CA on the merits of the case.

The third issue is thus now moot.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61963, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61, in Civil Case No. 97-2471, is AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 30. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr., with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios, and Edgardo P. Cruz concurring.

[2] cralaw Id. at 361-369.

[3] cralaw Id. at 247-248 (Allowing execution pending appeal).

[4] cralaw Id. at 369.

[5] cralaw Id. at 30.

[6] cralaw Id. at 763-764.

[7] cralaw Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson , G.R. No. 150798, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 612, 632.

[8] cralaw Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Y. Quijano, G.R. No. 140457, January 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15,25.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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