cases for june 30, 2016 atty. pancho

7/25/2019 Cases for June 30, 2016 Atty. Pancho

1/29

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31163 November 6, 1929

URBANO SANTOS,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

JOSE C. BERNABE, ET AL.,defendants.

PABLO TIONGSON !" T#E PRO$INCIAL S#ERI%% O% BULACAN,appellants.

Arcadio Ejercito and Guevara, Francisco and Recto for appellants.

Eusebio Orense And Nicolas Belmonte for appellee.

$ILLA-REAL, J.:

This appeal was taken b the defendants Pablo Tion!son and the P"ovincial #he"iff of

Bulacan f"o$ the %ud!$ent of the Cou"t of &i"st of said p"ovince, whe"ein said defendant

Pablo Tion!son was o"de"ed to pa the plaintiff '"bano #antos the value of (() cavans

and *) kilos of pala, at the "ate of P* pe" cavan, without special p"onounce$ent as to

costs.

+n suppo"t of thei" appeal, the appellants assi!n the followin! alle!ed e""o"s co$$itted

b the lowe" cou"t in its %ud!$ent, to wit

. The cou"t e""ed in holdin! that it has been p"oved that in the cavans of pala attached

b the he"ein defendant Pablo Tion!son f"o$ the defendant ose C. Be"nabe we"e

included those clai$ed b the plaintiff in this cause.

/. The cou"t e""ed in o"de"in! the defendant Pablo Tion!son to pa the plaintiff the value

of (() cavans and *) kilos of pala, the "efund of which is clai$ed b said plaintiff.

*. The cou"t e""ed in denin! the defendants0 $otion fo" a new t"ial.1awpil.net

The followin! facts we"e conclusivel p"oved at the t"ial

1n Ma"ch /2, 3/), the"e we"e deposited in ose C. Be"nabe0s wa"ehouse b the

plaintiff '"bano #antos (() cavans and *) kilos of pala and b Pablo Tion!son ,2/4

cavans and 3 kilos of the sa$e !"ain.

1n said date, Ma"ch /2, 3/), Pablo Tion!son filed with the Cou"t of &i"st +nstance of

Bulacan a co$plaint a!ainst ose C. Be"nabe, to "ecove" f"o$ the latte" the ,2/4

cavans and 3 kilos of pala deposited in the defendant0s wa"ehouse. At the sa$e ti$e,

the application of Pablo Tion!son fo" a w"it of attach$ent was !"anted, and the

attachable p"ope"t of ose C. Be"nabe, includin! 3/5 cavans and * 6/ kilos of palafound b the she"iff in his wa"ehouse, we"e attached, sold at public auction, and the

p"oceeds the"eof delive"ed to said defendant Pablo Tion!son, who obtained %ud!$ent in

said case.


2/29

The he"ein plaintiff, '"bano #antos, inte"vened in the attach$ent of the pala, but upon

Pablo Tion!son0s filin! the p"ope" bond, the she"iff p"oceeded with the attach$ent,

!ivin! "ise to the p"esent co$plaint.

+t does not appea" that the sacks of pala of '"bano #antos and those of Pablo

Tion!son, deposited in ose C. Be"nabe0s wa"ehouse, bo"e an $a"ks o" si!ns, no"we"e the sepa"ated one f"o$ the othe".

The plaintiff-appellee '"bano #antos contends that Pablo Tion!son cannot clai$ the

3/5 cavans and * 7 kilos of pala attached b the defendant she"iff as pa"t of those

deposited b hi$ in ose C. Be"nabe0s wa"ehouse, because, in askin! fo" the

attach$ent the"eof, he i$pliedl acknowled!ed that the sa$e belon!ed to ose C.

Be"nabe and not to hi$.

+n the co$plaint filed b Pablo Tion!son a!ainst ose C. Be"nabe, civil case No. *448 of

the Cou"t of &i"st +nstance of Bulacan, it is alle!ed that said plaintiff deposited in thedefendant0s wa"ehouse ,2/4 cavans and 3 kilos of pala, the "etu"n of which, o" the

value the"eof, at the "ate of P* pe" cavan was clai$ed the"ein. 'pon filin! said

co$plaint, the plaintiff applied fo" a p"eli$ina" w"it of attach$ent of the defendant0s

p"ope"t, which was acco"din!l issued, and the defendant0s p"ope"t, includin! the 3/5

cavans and * 7 kilos of pala found b the she"iff in his wa"ehouse, we"e attached.

+t will be seen that the action b"ou!ht b Pablo Tion!son a!ainst ose C. Be"nabe is that

p"ovided in section /4/ of the Code of Civil P"ocedu"e fo" the delive" of pe"sonal

p"ope"t. Althou!h it is t"ue that the plaintiff and his atto"ne did not follow st"ictl the

p"ocedu"e p"ovided in said section fo" clai$in! the delive" of said pe"sonal p"ope"tneve"theless, the p"ocedu"e followed b hi$ $a be const"ued as e9uivalent the"eto,

conside"in! the p"ovisions of section / of the Code of Civil P"ocedu"e of the effect that

:the p"ovisions of this Code, and the p"oceedin!s unde" it, shall be libe"all const"ued,

in o"de" to p"o$ote its ob%ect and assist the pa"ties in obtainin! speed %ustice.:

;ibe"all const"uin!, the"efo"e, the above cited p"ovisions of section /4/ of the Code of

Civil P"ocedu"e, the w"it of attach$ent applied fo" b Pablo Tion!son a!ainst the

p"ope"t of ose C. Be"nabe $a be const"ued as a clai$ fo" the delive" of the sacks

of pala deposited b the fo"$e" with the latte".

The (() cavans and *) kilos of pala belon!in! to the plaintiff '"bano #antos, havin!

been $i


3/29

>he"efo"e, the %ud!$ent appealed f"o$ is he"eb $odified, and Pablo Tion!son is

he"eb o"de"ed to pa the plaintiff '"bano #antos the value of *3).53 cavans of pala at

the "ate of P* a cavan, without special p"onounce$ent as to costs. #o o"de"ed.

Avance!a, ".#., $treet, %illamor and Ostrand, ##., concur.

#onson, #., reserves is vote.#ons, #., dissents.

G.R. No. 1&1163 J!'r( 11, 1993

STATE IN$ESTMENT #OUSE, INC., petitione",

vs.

COURT O% APPEALS !" NORA B. MOULIC, "espondents.

Escober, Alon & Associates for petitioner.

'artin (. )antaleon for private respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

The liabilit to a holde" in due cou"se of the d"awe" of checks issued to anothe" $e"el

as secu"it, and the "i!ht of a "eal estate $o"t!a!ee afte" e


4/29

1n /4 Ma 3)), the t"ial cou"t dis$issed the Co$plaint as well as the Thi"d-Pa"t

Co$plaint, and o"de"ed #TATE to pa M1';+C P*,222.22 fo" atto"ne0s fees.

#TATE elevated the o"de" of dis$issal to the Cou"t of Appeals, but the appellate cou"t

affi"$ed the t"ial cou"t on the !"ound that the Notice of ?ishono" to M1';+C was $ade

beond the pe"iod p"esc"ibed b the Ne!otiable +nst"u$ents ;aw and that even if

#TATE did se"ve such notice on M1';+C within the "e!le$enta" pe"iod it would be of

no conse9uence as the checks should neve" have been p"esented fo" pa$ent. The

sale of the %ewel" was neve" effected= the checks, the"efo"e, ceased to se"ve thei"

pu"pose as secu"it fo" the %ewel".

>e a"e not pe"suaded.

The ne!otiabilit of the checks is not in dispute. +ndubitabl, the we"e ne!otiable. Afte"

all, at the p"e-t"ial, the pa"ties a!"eed to li$it the issue to whethe" o" not #TATE was a

holde" of the checks in due cou"se. 1

+n this "e!a"d, #ec. 8/ of the Ne!otiable +nst"u$ents ;aw p"ovides

#ec. 8/. *at constitutes a older in due course. A holde" in due

cou"se is a holde" who has taken the inst"u$ent unde" the followin!

conditions a That it is co$plete and "e!ula" upon its face= b That he

beca$e the holde" of it befo"e it was ove"due, and without notice that it

was p"eviousl dishono"ed, if such was the fact= c That he took it in !ood

faith and fo" value= d That at the ti$e it was ne!otiated to hi$ he had no

notice of an infi"$it in the inst"u$ent o" defect in the title of the pe"son

ne!otiatin! it.

Culled f"o$ the fo"e!oin!, aprima faciep"esu$ption e


5/29

#ec. 3. +nstrument ow discar-ed. A ne!otiable inst"u$ent is

discha"!ed a B pa$ent in due cou"se b o" on behalf of the p"incipal

debto"= b B pa$ent in due cou"se b the pa"t acco$$odated, whe"e

the inst"u$ent is $ade o" accepted fo" his acco$$odation= c B the

intentional cancellation the"eof b the holde"= d B an othe" act which

will discha"!e a si$ple cont"act fo" the pa$ent of $one= e >hen the

p"incipal debto" beco$es the holde" of the inst"u$ent at o" afte" $atu"it

in his own "i!ht.

1bviousl, M1';+C $a onl invoke pa"a!"aphs c and d as possible !"ounds fo" the

discha"!e of the inst"u$ent. But, the intentional cancellation conte$plated unde"

pa"a!"aph c is that cancellation effected b dest"oin! the inst"u$ent eithe" b tea"in!

it up,*bu"nin! it,6o" w"itin! the wo"d :cancelled: on the inst"u$ent. The act of

dest"oin! the inst"u$ent $ust also be $ade b the holde" of the inst"u$ent

intentionall. #ince M1';+C failed to !et back possession of the post-dated checks, theintentional cancellation of the said checks is alto!ethe" i$possible.

1n the othe" hand, the acts which will discha"!e a si$ple cont"act fo" the pa$ent of

$one unde" pa"a!"aph d a"e dete"$ined b othe" e


6/29

inst"u$ent, eithe" ve"ball o" b w"itin!, the fact that a specified inst"u$ent, upon p"ope"

p"oceedin!s taken, has not been accepted o" has not been paid, and that the pa"t

notified is e


7/29

take action fo" the "ecove" of an unpaid balance on the p"incipal obli!ation si$pl

because he has chosen to e


8/29

debt= 5 B the confusion o" $e"!e" of the "i!hts of c"edito" and debto"=

8 B co$pensation= 4 B novation . . . . .

) Ma"tin v. B"owns, (8 Ala 55/.

3 Reinha"t v. ;ucas, ) > a 544, 32 #E ((/.

2 A$ u" 8)3.

#ee A!baani, Co$$e"cial ;aws of the Philippines, ol. , 3)5 Ed.,

citin! Ellenbo!en v. #tate Bank, 3( NG #upp /().

/ T#N, /8 Ap"il 3)8, pp. 4-(.

* Philippine Bank of Co$$e"ce v. de e"a, No. ;-))4, /3 ?ece$be"

34/=4 #CRA 2/3.

5 Medina v. Philippine National Bank, 84 Phil 48.

8. A"t. /8. The sale of the thin! pled!ed shall e


9/29

th"ee * #u"et A!"ee$ents e


10/29

+n affi"$in! the dis$issal of the co$plaint, the appellate cou"t stated The ?eed ofEe said


11/29

Anothe" e""o" assi!ned b the appellant is the fact that the lowe" cou"t took intoconside"ation the docu$ents attached to the co$plaint as a pa"t the"eof, withouthavin! been e


12/29

fo" fo"eclosu"e of $o"t!a!e, and a cop of the deed of $o"t!a!e was attached tothe co$plaint thus= acco"din! to this Cou"t, it would have been eas fo" thedefendants to specificall alle!e in thei" answe" whethe" o" not the hade


13/29

immaterial.Even if te jud-ment be subse0uent to te alienation, it is merel3declarator3, wit retroactive effect to te date wen te credit wasconstituted. . . . E$phasis #upplied Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines,ol. + Ed. pp. 8()-8(3

Pa"entheticall, the appellate cou"t0s obse"vation that the petitione"0s inte"ests a"esufficientl p"otected b a w"it of attach$ent on the p"ope"ties of &o"tune &inancePhils., +nc. has neithe" le!al no" factual basis.

1ne othe" point.

The t"ial cou"t dis"e!a"ded the e7/parteevidence adduced b the petitione" a!ainstA;EC1 when the latte" was decla"ed in default on the !"ound that the e7/

partep"oceedin!s we"e conducted b the ?eput Cle"k of Cou"t which is not allowed inacco"dance with the "ulin! in the case of 2im 8anu vs.Ramolete44 #CRA 5/8H3(8I. That "ulin! has al"ead been ove""uled in the late" case of Gocan-co vs."F+

of Ne-ros Occidental8( #CRA 52 H3))I, whe"ein we said

The "espondent Cou"t also decla"ed null and void :the "eception of evidence e7partebefo"e . . the deput cle"k of cou"t.: +t invoked what it te"$ed the doct"inal"ule laid down in the "ecent case of 2im 8an 9u vs.Ramolete, 44 #CRA 5*2,p"o$ul!ated on Au!ust /3, 3(8 inter alia decla"in! that a Cle"k of Cou"t is notle!all autho"i@ed to "eceive evidence e7/parte.

Now, that decla"ation does not "eflect lon! obse"ved and established %udicialp"actice with "espect to default cases. +t is not 9uite consistent, too, with theseve"al e


14/29

Conse9uentl, the"e is no le!al i$pedi$ent to the ad$issibilit of the evidencep"esented b the petitione" a!ainst A;EC1.

These findin!s pave the wa to the "esolution of the case on its $e"its.

Respondent Chua ad$itted his liabilit unde" the va"ious #u"et A!"ee$ents eeste"n A!"o +ndust"ial Co"po"ation and AntonioRod"i!ue@ vs. Cou"t of Appeals, and #ia0s Auto$otive and ?iesel Pa"ts, +nc., F.R. No.)/88), Au!ust /2, 332 Doweve", the sepa"ate pe"sonalit of the co"po"ation $a bedis"e!a"ded, o" the veil of co"po"ate fiction pie"ced when the co"po"ation is used :as acloak o" cove" fo" f"aud o" ille!alit, o" to wo"k an in%ustice, o" whe"e necessa" toachieve e9uit o" when necessa" fo" the p"otection of c"edito"s.: #ulo n! Baan, +nc.vs. A"aneta, +nc., (/ #CRA *5( H3(4I cited in Tan Boon Bee Co., +nc. vs.a"encio, supra= >este"n A!"o +ndust"ial Co"po"ation, et al. vs. Cou"t of Appeals, supra.

+n the instant case, the evidence clea"l shows that Chua and his i$$ediate fa$ilcont"ol A;EC1. The ?eed of E


15/29

These ci"cu$stances tend to show that the ?eed of E


16/29

di"ectin! the issuance of a w"it of eDERE&1RE, the cou"t finds the accused AF'#T+N P. #A;FA?1, R.,

!uilt beond "easonable doubt of the c"i$e of se"ious phsical in%u"ies,

defined and penali@ed unde" pa"a!"aph * A"ticle /4* of the Revised Penal

Code, and app"eciatin! in his favo" the followin! $iti!atin! ci"cu$stances

volunta" su""ende"= and

/ No intention to co$$it so !"ave a w"on! he"eb sentence sic said

accused to suffe" i$p"ison$ent fo" a pe"iod of fou" 5 $onths and twent

/2 das, with the accesso"ies p"ovided fo" b law, and to indemnif3 te

victim, Francisco 2uban, #r., in te sum of )15;,;,>>>.>> as dama-es for te

incapacit3 of Francisco 2uban to pursue and en-a-e in is poultr3

business.

#1 1R?ERE?. p. 3, Rollo

1n 1ctobe" (, 3)4, petitione" filed an application fo" p"obation with the t"ial cou"t. The

application was !"anted in an 1"de" dated Ap"il 8, 3)(. The o"de" contained, a$on!

othe"s, the followin! condition


17/29

petitione" filed di"ectl with this Cou"t a petition fo" "eview of the t"ial cou"t0s o"de"

!"antin! the $otion fo" issuance of a w"it of ee "efe""ed the petition to the

Cou"t of Appeals in a "esolution dated Ap"il *, 3)) p. ), Rollo.

1n Ma"ch 4, 3)3, "espondent Cou"t of Appeals "ende"ed a decision affi"$in! the

o"de" of the t"ial cou"t !"antin! the $otion fo" the issuance of a w"it of e. p. 2, Rollo

+n its decision affi"$in! the o"de" of the t"ial cou"t !"antin! p"ivate "espondent0s $otion

fo" the issuance of a w"it of e


18/29

"ende"ed in a suitte mission of te court is limited to te e7ecution and

enforcement of te said final jud-ment in all of its parts and in accordance

wit its e7press orders.? The %ud!$ent in 9uestion is clea", and with the

a$ended w"it of ee do not believe, howeve", that the o"de" dated Ap"il 8, 3)( !"antin! the application

fo" p"obation and i$posin! so$e conditions the"ein alte"ed o" $odified the decision

dated 1ctobe" 4, 3)4. The Ap"il 8, 3)( 1"de" of the t"ial cou"t !"antin! the

application fo" p"obation and p"ovidin! as one of the conditions the"ein that petitione"

inde$nif p"ivate "espondent P/,222.22 $onthl du"in! the pe"iod of p"obation did not

inc"ease o" dec"ease the civil liabilit ad%ud!ed a!ainst petitione" but $e"el p"ovided

fo" the $anne" of pa$ent b the accused of his civil liabilit durin- te period of

probation.

+t is the sub$ission of p"ivate "espondent that in the case of Budlon- v

.Apaliso, No.

428, une /5, 3)*, // #CRA 3*8. >e al"ead "uled that :The 0conviction and

sentence0 clause of the statuto" definition clea"l si!nifies that probation affects onl3

te criminal aspect of te case.:

The p"onounce$ent inApaliso

that :p"obation affects onl the c"i$inal aspect of the

case: should not be !iven a lite"al $eanin!. +nte"p"etin! the ph"ase within the conte


19/29

+n the case of Florentino 2. Bacla3on v. 9on. )acito G. 'utia, et al

., F.R. No. 83/3),

Ap"il *2, 3)5, /3 #CRA 5), >e "uled that the conditions listed unde" #ection 2 of

the P"obation ;aw a"e not e


20/29

385= Also / '.#. ?ept. of ustice, Atto"ne Fene"al0s #u"ve of Release

P"ocedu"es *) 3*3 cited in The Pe"iod and Conditions of P"obation b

#e"!io &. Fo, +BP ou"nal #pecial +ssue on P"obation, ol. 8, No. 8, pp.

524-5/2. E$phasis ou"s

The t"ial cou"t is !iven the disc"etion to i$pose conditions in the o"de" !"antin!

p"obation :as it $a dee$ best.: As al"ead stated, it is not onl li$ited to those listed

unde" #ection 2 of the P"obation ;aw. Thus, unde" #ection /4, pa"a!"aph d of the

Rules on P"obation Methods and P"ocedu"es, a$on! the conditions which $a be

i$posed in the o"de" !"antin! p"obation is

#ec. /4. 1the" conditions of P"obation. The P"obation 1"de" $a also

"e9ui"e the p"obatione" in app"op"iate cases, to


21/29

Sere O7!7o!

CRU4, J., concu""in!

+ concu" in the "esult, the issue havin! beco$e $oot and acade$ic. At the sa$e ti$e,

howeve", + $ust e


22/29

G.R. No. 1*2+1 Ar7= , 2&&

C#INA BANING CORPORATION,petitione",

vs.

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION !" E$ELOPMENT CORPORATION,"espondent.

E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINE4, J.>

Befo"e the Cou"t is a Petition fo" Review on "ertiorari unde" Rule 58 of the Rules of

Cou"t filed b petitione" China Bankin! Co"po"ation China Bank seekin! to annul the

Resolutiondated 1ctobe" 5, /22/ and the Resolution/dated Ma 4, /22* of the

Cou"t of Appeals CA in CA-F.R. C No. (/(8.

The facts of the case

1n ul /5, 334, China Bank !"anted "espondent Asian Const"uction and ?evelop$ent

Co"po"ation AC?C an 1$nibus C"edit ;ine in the a$ount of P32,222,222.22.*

1n Ap"il /, 333, alle!in! that AC?C failed to co$pl with its obli!ations unde" the

1$nibus C"edit ;ine, China Bank filed a Co$plaint5fo" "ecove" of su$ of $one and

da$a!es with p"ae" fo" the issuance of w"it of p"eli$ina" attach$ent befo"e the

Re!ional T"ial Cou"t RTC of Makati, B"anch *), docketed as Civil Case No. 33-(34.

+n the Co$plaint, China Bank clai$ed that AC?C, afte" collectin! and "eceivin! the

p"oceeds o" "eceivables f"o$ the va"ious const"uction cont"acts and pu"po"tedl holdin!

the$ in t"ust fo" China Bank unde" seve"al ?eeds of Assi!n$ent, $isapp"op"iated,

conve"ted, and used the funds fo" its own pu"pose and benefit, instead of "e$ittin! o"

delive"in! the$ to China Bank.8

1n Ap"il //, 333, the RTC issued an 1"de"4!"antin! China Banks p"ae" fo" w"it of

p"eli$ina" attach$ent. Conse9uentl, as shown in the #he"iffs Repo"t(dated une 5,

333, the w"it of p"eli$ina" attach$ent was i$ple$ented levin! pe"sonal p"ope"ties of

AC?C, i.e., vans, du$p t"ucks, ce$ent $i


23/29

1n une 8, /222, China Bank filed a Motion to Take Custod of Attached P"ope"ties

with Motion fo" F"ant of Autho"it to #ell to the B"anch #he"iff2with the RTC, p"ain!

that it be allowed to take custod of AC?Cs p"ope"ties fo" the pu"pose of sellin! the$ in

an auction.1n une /2, /222, AC?C filed its 1pposition/to the une 8, /222 Motion

a"!uin! that the"e can be no sale of the latte"s attached p"ope"ties in the absence of a

final and e


24/29

< <

cases for june 30, 2016 atty. pancho

Documents