specpro - cases - set 1

8/12/2019 Specpro - Cases - Set 1

1/29

RULE 62 INTERPLEADER

G.R. No. L-23851 March 26, 1976

W AC W AC G! L" # C! UN TR $ C LU% , IN C., plaintiff-appellant,vs.LEE E. W!N a&'a( RAM!N LEE a)* %IEN+ENID! A. TAN, defendants-appellees.

CATR!, C.J.:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in civil case 7656,dismissing the plaintiff-appellants complaint of interpleader upon the grounds of failure tostate a cause of action and res judicata.

In its amended and supplemental complaint of !cto"er #$, %&6$, the 'ac( 'ac( )olf *Countr+ Clu", Inc., a non-stoc(, civic and athletic corporation dul+ organized under thelas of the hilippines, ith principal office in andalu+ong, Rizal /hereinafter referred toas the Corporation0, alleged, for its first cause of action, that the defendant 1ee 2. 'onclaims onership of its mem"ership fee certificate #3%, "+ virtue of the decision renderedin civil case #6344 of the CFI of anila, entitled Lee E. Won alias Ramon Lee vs. WackWack Golf & Country Club, Inc. and also "+ virtue of mem"ership fee certificate #3%-serial no. %47 issued on !cto"er %7, %&6$ "+ onciano . 8acinto, deput+ cler( of courtof the said CFI of anila, for and in "ehalf of the president and the secretar+ of theCorporation and of the eoples an( * Trust Compan+ as transfer agent of the saidCorporation, pursuant to the order of 9eptem"er #$, %&6$ in the said case: that thedefendant ienvenido ;. Tan, on the other hand, claims to "e laful oner of itsaforesaid mem"ership fee certificate #3% "+ virtue of mem"ership fee certificate #3%-serial no. %%&& issued to him on 8ul+ #4, %&53 pursuant to an assignment made in hisfavor "+ 9an, Cul"ertson and Fritz, the original oner and holder of mem"ership feecertificate #3%: that under its articles of incorporation and "+-las the Corporation isauthorized to issue a ma


2/29

prescription These motions ere dul+ opposed "+ the Corporation Finding the grounds too late for it to invo(e the remed+ of interpleader claimant s tr+ing out his claim and esta"lishing it at la he

interpleader suit. 4 omero+s 2?. 8uris. >o. %6#: itfors2?. leading /T+lers 2d.0 %47 and #$6: 1angdells9ummar+ of 2?. leading, >o. %6# +e ouc%e v.Garri-on, %43 a. 4$3, #% ;E453. 17

It is the general rule that a "ill of interpleader comes toolate hen application therefore is dela+ed until after@udgment has "een rendered in favor of one of theclaimants of the fund, and that this is especiall+ true herethe holder of the fund had notice of the conflicting claimsprior to the rendition of such @udgment and an opportunit+to implead the adverse claimants in the suit in hich such

@udgment as rendered. /9ee notes and cases cited $6;m. =ec. 73$, ;m. 9t. Rep. 5&, also 5 omero+s 2?.8uris. 9ec. 4%.0

The evidence in the opinion of the ma@orit+ shos "e+onddispute that the appellant permitted the ar(er count+ suitto proceed to @udgment in favor of ritton ith full notice ofthe adverse claims of the defendants in the present suitother than the assignees of the @udgment /the "an( andrs. a""0 and no ee Dor( as not in position to file an interpleader until ithad tested the claim of relatri< to final @udgment, and that,fail ing to meet ith success, it promptl+ fi led the

interpleader The reason h+ it urges it as not in such

in sustaining its construction of the "ond and the lagoverning the "ond, it ould not have "een called upon tofile an interpleader, since there ould have "een sufficientfunds in its hands to have satisfied all laful claimants. Itma+ "e o"served, hoever, that the suret+ compan+ asac?uainted ith all of the facts, and hence that it simpl+too( its chances of meeting ith success "+ its onconstruction of the "ond and the la. Baving failed tosustain it, it cannot no force relatri< into litigation aneith others, involving most li(el+ a repetition of hat has"een decided, or force her to accept a pro rata part of afund, hich is far from "enefits of the @udgment. 19

esides, a successful litigant cannot later "e impleaded "+ his defeated adversar+ in aninterpleader suit and compelled to prove his claim ane against other adverse claimants,as that ould in effect "e a collateral attac( upon the @udgment.

The @urisprudence of this state and the common la statesis ell-settled that a claimant ho has "een put to test of atrial "+ a suret+, and has esta"lish his claim, ma+ not "eimpleaded later "+ the suret+ in an interpleader suit, andcompelled to prove his claim again ith other adverseclaimants.1merican 2urety Com"any of $e3 ork v. # rim,%75 1a. &5&, %44 9o. 7#7:1merican 2uret y Com"any of$e3 ork v. #rim /In Re 1+ong 1um"er Compan+0, %761a. 67, %47 9o. %: +u/as v. $.. Casualty Co., %% 1a.$##, %5& 9o. 57#: %5 Ruling Case 1a, ##: $$ Corpus8uris, 477: 4 omero+s 8urisprudence, %3#$: Royal$ei/%bors of 1merica v. Lo3ary /=.C.0 46 F#d565: #rackett v. Graves, $3 ;pp. =iv. %6#, 5% >.D.9.

&5: +e ouc%e v. Garrison, %43 a. 4$3, #% ;. 453,45%:anufacturer*s 4inance Co. v. W.I. 5ones Co. %4%)a., 5%&, % 9.2. %3$$: (ancock utual Life Ins. Co. v.La3der, ## R.I. 4%6, 4 ;. $$.

There can "e no dou"t that relators claim has "een finall+and definitel+ esta"lished, "ecause that matter aspassed upon "+ three courts in definitive @udgments. Theonl+ remaining item is the value of the use of the landduring the time that relator occupied it. The case asremanded solel+ and onl+ for the purpose of determiningthe amount of that credit. In all other aspects the @udgmentis final. 2

It is generall+ held "+ the cases it is the office ofinterpleader to protect a part+, not against dou"le lia"ilit+,"ut against dou"le ve


3/29

G.R. No. 127913 /0//r 13, 21

R I4 AL C !M ME RC IA L % AN I NG C !R P!R AT I!N ,petitioner,vs.METR! C!NTAINER C!RP!RATI!N, respondent.

APUNAN, J.:

;ssailed in this petition for revie on certiorari are the =ecision, promulgated on %!cto"er %&&6 and the Resolution, promulgated on 3 8anuar+ %&&7, of the Court of;ppeals in C;-).R. 9 >o. 4%#&4.

The facts of the case are as follosA

!n #6 9eptem"er %&&3, 1e+ Construction Corporation /12DC!>0 contracted a loan fromRizal Commercial an(ing Corporation /RCC0 in the amount of Thirt+ illion esos/$3,333,333.330. The loan as secured "+ a real estate mortgage over a propert+,located in arrio Ggong, alenzuela, etro anila /no alenzuela Cit+0 and covered "+TCT >o. -%7##$. 12DC!> failed to settle its o"ligations prompting RCC to institute anes legal attempts to forestall the action of RC failed, the foreclosure too(place on # =ecem"er %& ith RCC as the highest "idder.

12DC!> promptl+ filed an action for >ullification of 2o. 43$7--&$, as raffled to

the Regional Trial Court /RTC0 of alenzuela, ranch %7#. eanhile, RCCconsolidated its onership over the propert+ due to 12DC!>s failure to redeem it ithinthe %#-month redemption period and TCT >o. -$$#4$# as issued if favor of the "an(.+ virtue thereof, RCC demanded rental pa+ments from etro Container Corporation/2TR!C;>0 hich as leasing the propert+ from 12DC!>.

!n #6 a+ %&&4, 12DC!> filed an action for Gnlaful =etainer, doc(eted as Civil Case>o. 6#3#, against 2TR!C;> "efore the etropolitan Trial Court /eTC0 of alenzuela,ranch #.

!n #7 a+ %&&4, 2TR!C;> filed a complaint for Interpleader, doc(eted as Civil Case>o. 4$&--&4 "efore the Regional Trial Court of alenzuela, etro anila: ranch 75against 12DC!> and RCC to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claimsamong themselves and to determine hich among them shall rightfull+ receive thepa+ment of monthl+ rentals on the su"@ect propert+ .!n 34 8ul+ %&&5, during the pre-trialconference in Civil Case >o. 4$&--&4, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the caseinsofar as 2TR!C;> and 12DC!> ere concerned in vie of an amica"le settlement

the+ entered "+ virtue of hich 2TR!C;> paid "ac( rentals to 12DC!>.

!n $% !cto"er %&&5, @udgment as rendered in Civil Case >o.6#3#, hich among otherthings, ordered 2TR!C;> to pa+ 12DC!> hatever rentals due on the su"@ectpremises. The eTC decision "ecame final and e, li(eise, moved for the dismissal of the case citing the same grounds cited "+2TR!C;>.

!n %# arch %&&6, the to motions ere dismissed for lac( of merit. The motions forreconsideration filed "+ 2TR!C;> and 12DC!> ere also denied prompting2TR!C;> to see( relief from the Court of ;ppeals via a petition for certiorari andprohi"ition ith pra+er for the issuance of a temporar+ restraining order and a rit of

preliminar+ in@unction 12DC!> as private respondent also sought for the nullification of

In its =ecision, promulgated on % !cto"er %&&6, the Court of ;ppeals granted thepetition and set aside the %# arch %&&6 and #4 8une %&&6 orders of the RTC. Theappellate court also ordered the dismissal of Civil Case >o. 4$&--&4. RCCs motionfor reconsideration as denied for lac( of merit in the resolution of 3 8anuar+ %&&7.

Bence, the present recourse.

RCC alleged, thatA

/%0 TB2 =2CI9I!> !F TB2 2TR!!1IT;> TRI;1 C!GRT I> TB2282CT2>T C;92 2T'22> 2TR!C;> ;>= 12DC!> =!29 >!T

;>= C;>>!T R2>=2R TB2 I>T2R12;=2R ;CTI!> !!T ;>=;C;=2IC.

/#0 'BI12 ; ;RTD 'B! I>ITI;T29 ;> I>T2R12;=2R ;CTI!>;D >!T 2 C!2112= T! 1ITI);T2 IF B2 I9 >! 1!>)2RI>T2R29T2= T! GR9G2 9GCB C;G92 !F ;CTI!>, 9;I= ;RTD;D >!T G>I1;T2R;11D C;G92 TB2 =I9I99;1 !F TB2 C;92;FT2R TB2 ;>9'2R B; 2 22> FI12=. FGRTB2R, TB2=2F2>=;>T9 I> ;> I>T2R12;=2R 9GIT 9B!G1= 2 )I2> FG11!!RTG>ITD T! 1ITI);T2 TB2IR R292CTI2 C1;I9. %

'e sustain the Court of ;ppeals.

9ection %, Rule 6$ of the Revised Rules of Court #providesA

9ection %. 6 Inter"leader 3%en "ro"er. - 'henever conflicting claims uponthe same su"@ect matter are or ma+ "e made against a person, hoclaims no interest hatever in the su"@ect matter, or an interest hich inhole or in part is not disputed "+ the claimants, he ma+ "ring an actionagainst the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigatetheir several claims among themselves.

In the case "efore us, it is undisputed that 2TR!C;> filed the interpleader action /CivilCase >o. 4$&--&40 "ecause it as unsure hich "eteen 12DC!> and RCC asentitled to receive the pa+ment of monthl+ rentals on the su"@ect propert+. 12DC!> asclaiming pa+ment of the rentals as lessor of the propert+ hile RCC as ma(ing ademand "+ virtue of the consolidation of the title of the propert+ in its name.

It is also undisputed that 12DC!>, as lessor of the su"@ect propert+ filed an action forunlaful detainer /Civil Case >o. 6#3#0 against its lessee 2TR!C;>. The issue in CivilCase >o. 6#3# is limited to the ?uestion of ph+sical or material possession of thepremises.$The issue of onership is immaterial therein 4and the outcome of the case

could not in an+ a+ affect conflicting claims of onership, in this case "eteen RCCand 12DC!>. This as made clear hen the trial court, in den+ing RCCs otion forInclusion < < < as an Indispensa"le art+ declared that the final determination of theissue of ph+sical possession over the su"@ect premises "eteen the plaintiff and thedefendant shall not in an+ a+ affect RCCs claims of onership over the saidpremises, since RCC is neither a co-lessor or co- lessee of the same, hence he has nolegal personalit+ to @oin the parties herein ith respect to the issue of ph+sicalpossession vis6a6vis the contract of lease "eteen the parties. 5;s aptl+ pointed "+ theeTC, the issue in Civil Case >o. 6#3# is limited to the defendant 12DC!>s "reach ofthe provisions of the Contract of 1ease Rentals. 6

Bence, the reason for the interpleader action ceased hen the eTC rendered @udgmentin Civil Case >o. 6#3# here"+ the court directed 2TR!C;> to pa+ 12DC!>hatever rentals due on the su"@ect premises < < o. 6#3# "ecame final ande has no other alternative left "ut to pa+ the rentals to 12DC!>.recisel+ "ecause there as alread+ a @udicial fiat to 2TR!C;>, there as no morereason to continue ith Civil Case >o 4$&--&4 Thus 2TR!C;> moved for the

dismissal of the interpleader action not "ecause it is no longer interested "ut "ecausethere is no more need for it to pursue such cause of action.

It should "e remem"ered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person notagainst dou"le lia"ilit+ "ut against dou"le veo. 6#3# resolved the conflicting claims insofar aspa+ment of rentals as concerned.

etitioner is correct in sa+ing that it is not "ound "+ the decision in Civil Case >o. 6#3#. Itis not a part+ thereto. Boever, it could not compel 2 TR!C;> to pursue Civil Case >o.4$&--&4. RCC has other avenues to prove its claim. Is not "ereft of other legalremedies. In fact, he issue of onership can ver+ ell "e threshed out in Civil Case >o.43$7--&$, the case for >ullification of 2


4/29

G.R. No. L-1818 "/rar 18, 1976

4!ILA C! LIM, petitioner,vs.C!NTINENTAL DE+EL!PTMENT C!RP!RATI!N, respondent.

G.R. No. L-1831 "/rar 18, 1976

C !N TI NE NT AL D E+ EL! PM ENT C !R P!R AT I! N, petitioner,vs.%ENIT! GER+AI! TAN a)* 4!ILA C! LIM, respondents.

MAAIAR, J.

These to petitions see( a revie of the order dated arch %#, %&74 of the 8udgepresiding ranch HHI of the anila Court of First Instance, dismissing petitionerContinental =evelopment Corporations complaint. The C!GRT resolved to treat thesepetitions as special civil actions, the petition to dismiss filed "+ the respondent enito)ervasio Tan as anser and the cases as su"mitted for decision. !n >ovem"er #6,%&7$, herein petitioner Continental =evelopment Corporation filed a complaint forinterpleader against the defendants enito )ervasio Tan and oila Co 1im, allegingamong othersA

#. That in the "oo(s of the plaintiff, there appears the name of thedefendant enito )ervasio Tan as one of its stoc(holders initiall+sometime in %&75 ith fift+ /530 common shares covered "+ of stoc( >os.%# and %$, and su"se?uentl+ credited ith /750 shares "+ a+ ofdividends covered "+ certificates of stoc( >os. #3 and #5, or anoutstanding total stoc(holding of one hundred tent+ five /%#50 commonshares of the par value of To Bundred Fift+ esos /#53.330 each.$. That said defendant enito )ervasio Tan, personall+ or through hisla+er, has since =ecem"er, %&7#, "een demanding from "+ letters andtelegrams, the release to him of the certificates stoc( aforesaid "ut hichthe plaintiff has not done so far and is prevented from doing so "ecause ofthe vehement and adverse claim thereto "+ the other defendant, oila Co1im.4. That the defendant oila Co 1im, "+ letters sent to the plaintiff throughher counsel, has laid claim and persists in claiming the ver+ same sharesof stoc( "eing demanded "+ the other defendant alleging that said stoc(sreall+ "elonged to her mother 9o no alread+ deceased, and strongl+den+ing her proclaim to the same.5. That "oth defendants, through their respective la+ers, threaten to ta(epunitive measures against the plaintiff compan+ should it ta(e an+ stepsthat ma+ pre@udice their respective interests in so far as the stoc(s in?uestion are concerned.6. That plaintiff is not sufficientl+ informed of the right of the respectiveclaimants and therefore not in a position to determine @ustl+ and correctl+

their conflicting claims.7. That the plaintiff compan+ has no interest of an+ (ind in said stoc(s andis read+ and illing to deliver the corresponding certificates of onershipto homsoever as this Bonora"le Court ma+ direct. /pp. ##-#$, rec.0

and pra+ing that the defendants "e directed to interplead and litigate their respectiveclaims over the aforementioned shares of stoc( and to determine their respective rightsthereto.

!n 8anuar+ 7, %&74, herein respondent enito )ervasio Tan, as defendant in the loercourt, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground, inter alia, that paragraph #of the complaint itself states that the shares of stoc( in ?uestion are recorded in the"oo(s of petitioner in the same of defendant enito )ervasio Tan, ho should therefore"e declared oner thereof pursuant to 9ection 5# of the Corporation 1a /pp. #5-$3,rec.0.

!n 8anuar+ %4 %&74 defendant oila Co 1im filed her anser eo. 1-4%$%0. =efendant oila Co 1im, on the other hand. as heretoforestated, claims sole-onership of said shares of stoc( as inheritance from her late mother9o i, alias Taa.

;nd petitioner Continental =evelopment Corporation eo.1-4%$%, should "e given full opportunit+ to litigate their respective claims.

Rule 6$, 9ection % of the >e Rules of Court tells us hen a cause of action e9 ;R2 B2R2D )R;>T2=: TB2 !R=2R =;T2=;RCB %#, %&74 =I9I99I>) TB2 C!1;I>T ;>= TB2 !R=2R =;T2= 8G1D $,%&74 =2>DI>) TB2 !TI!> F!R R2C!>9I=2R;TI!> !F TB2 2TITI!>2R9 I>TB292 T'! C;929 ;R2 B2R2D 92T ;9I=2. 'ITB C!9T9 ;);I>9TR29!>=2>T 2>IT! )2R;9I! T;>.


5/29

RULE 63 DECLARAT!R$ RELIE" AND IMILAR REMEDIE

G.R. No. 1586 a)ar 28, 28

EU"EMIA ALMEDA a)* R!MEL ALMEDA, petitioners,vs.%ATALA MARETING INDUTRIE, INC.,respondent.

D E C I I ! N

NACURA, J.

This is a etition for Revie on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, of the=ecision%of the Court of ;ppeals /C;0, dated 9eptem"er $, #33%, in C;-).R. C >o.6774, and its Resolution#dated >ovem"er %&, #33%. The assailed =ecision affirmedith modification t he =ecision$of the Regional Trial Court /RTC0, a(ati Cit+, ranch%$6, dated a+ &, #333 in Civil Case >o. &-4%%.

9ometime in a+ %&&7, respondent athala ar(eting Industries, Inc., as lessee,represented "+ its president Ramon B. )arcia, reneed its Contract of 1ease 4ithonciano 1. ;lmeda /onciano0, as lessor, hus"and of petitioner 2ufemia and father ofpetitioner Romel ;lmeda. Gnder the said contract, onciano agreed to lease a portion ofthe ;lmeda Compound, located at ##3 asong Tamo 9treet, a(ati Cit+, consisting of7,$4.#5 s?uare meters, for a monthl+ rental of %,%37,$4.6&, for a term of four /40+ears from a+ %, %&&7 unless sooner terminated as provided in the contract .5Thecontract of lease contained the folloing pertinent provisions hich gave rise to theinstant caseA

9IHTB - It is eTB - In case an eo. &-4%%"efore the RTC of a(ati.

!n arch %3, %&&, petitioners in turn filed an action for e@ectment, rescission anddamages against respondent for failure of the latter to vacate the premises after thedemand made "+ the former.%%efore respondent could file an anser, petitioners filed a>otice of =ismissal.%#The+ su"se?uentl+ refiled the complaint "efore the etropolitanTrial Court of a(ati: the case as raffled to ranch %$& and as doc(eted as Civil Case>o. 5$5&6.

etitioners later moved for the dismissal of the declarator+ relief case for "eing animproper remed+ considering that respondent as alread+ in "reach of the o"ligation andthat the case ould not end the litigation and settle the rights of the parties. The trialcourt, hoever, as not persuaded, and conse?uentl+, denied the motion.

;fter trial on the merits, on a+ &, #333, the RTC ruled in favor of respondent andagainst petitioners. The pertinent portion of the decision readsA

'B2R2F!R2, premises considered, this Court renders @udgment on thecase as follosA

%0 declaring that plaintiff is not lia"le for the pa+ment of alue-;dded Ta=2>T9 R2I!G9 ;CC!G>T ;1;>C29'BICB '2R2 R2-T2RI>;T2=ET2RI>;T2= ;T TB2 TI2 TB2 ;>I1;;>I>) C!R!R;TI!> ';9 ;1R2;=D I> 92RI!G9 FI>;>CI;1 =I9TR299.

In its supplement to the petition, =IC adds the folloing assignment of errorA

TB2 B!>!R;12 C!GRT !F ;2;19 2RR2= I> ;FFIRI>) TB2 B!1=I>) !F

TB2 TRI;1 C!GRT !R=2RI>) 2TITI!>2R T! ;D R29!>=2>T9 C1;I9 F!R

=2C1;R;T!RD R21I2F =!29 >!T 2992>TI;11D 2>T;I1 ;> 2H2CGT!RDR!C299 ;9 TB2 !>1D R21I2F TB;T 9B!G1= B;2 22> )R;>T2= D TB2TRI;1 C!GRT I9 ; =2C1;R;TI!> !F TB2 RI)BT9 ;>= =GTI29 !F 2TITI!>2RG>=2R R.;. $5&%, ;9 ;2>=2=, ;RTICG1;R1D 92CTI!> $/F0 TB2R2!F ;9C!>9I=2R2= ;);I>9T TB2 9GRR!G>=I>) CIRCG9T;>C29 !F TB2 ;TT2RI> I99G2 9!G)BT T! 2 C!>9TRG2= 'ITB!GT R28G=IC2 T! !TB2R;TT2R9 TB;T >22= T! 2 C!>9I=2R2= D 2TITI!>2R I> TB2 R!C299I>)!F R29!>=2>T9 C1;I9.

Gnder its charter,%5=IC /hereafter petitioner0 is lia"le onl+ for deposits received "+ a"an( in the usual course of "usiness. %6eing of the firm conviction that, as the reporteda+ #5, %&7 "an( transactions ere so massive, hence, irregular, petitioner essentiall+see(s a @udicial declaration that such transactions ere not made in the usual course of"usiness and, therefore, it cannot "e made lia"le for deposits su"@ect thereof. %7

etitioner points that as C as prohi"ited from doing further "usiness "+ Resolution 535 as of a+ ##, %&7, all transactions su"se?uent to such date ere notdone in the usual course of "usiness.

etitioner further posits that there as no consideration for the #3 )T=s su"@ect ofrespondents claim. In support of this su"mission, it states that prior to arch #5, %&7,hen the #3 )T=s ere made, C had "een e


13/29

de"osited"+ respondents under # ne )T=s. ;dmittedl+, C had #,4%,7%%.&3cash on hand S more than dou"le the outstanding "alance of respondents 7% )T=s Sat the start of the "an(ing da+ on a+ #5, %&7. 9ince respondent 8ose ;"ad as atC soon after it opened at &A33 a.m. of that da+, petitioner should not presume thatC had no cash to cover the ne )T=s of respondents and conclude that t here as noconsideration for said )T=s.

etitioner having failed to overcome the presumption that the ordinar+ course of "usinessas folloed,#$ this Court finds that the # ne )T=s ere deposited in the usualcourse of "usiness of C.

In its second assignment of error, petitioner posits that the trial court erred in ordering it to

pa+ the "alance of the deposit insurance to respondents, maintaining that the instantpetition stemmed from a petition for declarator+ relief hich does not essentiall+ entail ane


14/29

G.R. No. 16966 Ma 9, 27

DEPARTMENT !" %UDGET AND MANAGEMENT, r/0r/(/)/* ECRETAR$ R!MUL! L. NERI, PILIPPINE NATI!NAL P!LICE, r/0r/(/)/* P!LICE DIRECT!R GENERAL ARTUR! L. L!MI%A!, NATI!NAL P!LICE C!MMII!N, r/0r/(/)/* CAIRMAN ANGEL! T. RE$E, AND CI+ILER+ICE C!MMII!N, r/0r/(/)/* CAIRPER!N ARINA C. DA+ID, etitioners,vs.MANILA

GARCIA, J.:

;ssailed and sought to "e set aside in this petition for revie on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the folloing issuances of the Court of ;ppeals /C;0 in C;-).R. C >o. 7#3$, to itA

%. =ecision%dated 8ul+ 7, #335 hich affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of anila, ranch $#, in Civil Case >o. 3#-%3$73#, a suit for declarator+ relief, declaring the herein respondents entitled to the same retirement "enefits accorded upon retirees of the hilippine >ational olice />0under Repu"lic ;ct /R.;.0 >o. 6&75, as amended "+ R.;. >o. 55%, and o rdering the herein petitioners to implement the proper ad@ustments on respondentsP retirement "enefits: and

#. Resolution#dated ;ugust #4, #335 hich denied the petitionersP motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent factsA

In %&75, residential =ecree /.=.0 >o. 765 as issued constituting the Integrated >ational olice /I>0 to "e composed of the hilippine Consta"ular+ /C0 as the nucleus and the integrated police forces as components thereof. Complementing .=. >o. 765 as .=. >o. %%4 $dated ;ugust #6, %&77 /I> 1a, hereinafter0issued to professionalize the I> and promote career development therein.

!n =ecem"er %$, %&&3, Repu"lic ;ct /R.;.0 >o. 6&75, entitled ;> ;CT 29T;1I9BI>) TB2 BI1II>2 >;TI!>;1 !1IC2 G>=2R ; R2!R);>I2= =2;RT2>T !F TB2 I>T2RI!R ;>= 1!C;1 )!2R>2>T, ;>= F!R !TB2R GR!929, hereinafter referred to as > 1a, as enacted. Gnder 9ection#$ of said la, the hilippine >ational olice />0 ould initiall+ consist of the mem"ers of the I>, created under .=. >o. 765, as ell as the officers and enlisted personnel of the C. In part, 9ection #$ readsA

92C. #$. Composition. O 9u"@ect to the limitation provided for in this ;ct, the hilippine >ational olice, hereinafter referred to as the >, is here"+ esta"lished, initiall+ consisting of the mem"ers of the police forces ho ere integrated into the Integrated >ational olice /I>0 pursuant to residential =ecree >o. 765, andthe officers and enlisted personnel of the hilippine Consta"ular+ /C0.

; little less than eight /0 +ears later, or on Fe"ruar+ #5, %&&, R.;. >o. 6&75 as amended "+ R.;. >o. 55%, otherise (non as the BI1II>2 >;TI!>;1 !1IC2 R2F!R ;>= R2!R);>I;TI!> ;CT !F %&&. ;mong other things, the amendator+ la reengineered the retirement scheme in the policeorganization. Relevantl+, > personnel, under the ne la, stood to collect more retirement "enefits than hat I> mem"ers of e?uivalent ran(, ho had retired under the I> 1a, received.

The I> retirees illustrated the resulting disparit+ in the retirement "enefits "eteen them and the > retirees as follos A4

Retirement Ran( onthl+ ension =ifference

I> > I> >

Corporal 9!$ $,##5.33 %%,$%3.33 ,3&5.33

Captain . 9r. Insp. 5,#4.33 %5,&76.33 %3,6#.33

ri g. )en. . Chi ef 9upt. %3,354.#4 %,3.33 ,3$$.76

Bence, on 8une $, #33#, in the Regional Trial Court /RTC0 of anila, all I> retirees, spearheaded "+ the anilaPs Finest Retirees ;ssociation, Inc., or the FR;I /hereinafter collectivel+ referred to as the I> Retirees0, filed a petition for declarator+ relief, 5thereunder impleading, as respondents, the =epartment of udgetand anagement /=0, the >, the >ational olice Commission />;!1C!0, the Civil 9ervice Commission /C9C0 and the )overnment 9ervice Insurance 9+stem /)9I90. =oc(eted in the RTC as Civil Case >o. 3#-%3$73#, hich as raffled to ranch ## thereof, the petition alleged in gist that I> retirees ere e?uall+situated as the > retirees "ut hose retirement "enefits prior to the enactment of R.;. >o. 6&75, as amended "+ R.;. >o. 55%, ere unconsciona"l+ and ar"itraril+ e


15/29

=2C1;R;T!RD 8G=)2>T "e rendered in their favor, =2C1;RI>) ith certaint+ that the+, as I>-retirees, are trul+ a"sor"ed and e?uall+ considered as >-retirees and thus, entitled to en@o+ the 9;2 or I=2>TIC;1 retirement "enefits "eing "estoed to >-retirees "+ virtue of said > 1a or Repu"lic ;ct >o.6&75, as amended "+ Repu"lic ;ct 55%, ith the corollar+ mandate for the respondents-government agencies to effect the immediate ad@ustment on their previousl+ received disparate retirement "enefits, retroactive to its effectivit+, and ith due pa+ment thereof.

The )9I9 moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of lac( of @urisdiction and cause of action.!n the other hand, the C9C, =, >;!1C! and >, in their respective ansers, assertedthat the petitioners could not claim the more generous retirement "enefits under R.;. >o. 6&75"ecause at no time did the+ "ecome > mem"ers, having retired prior to the enactment of saidla. =, >;!1C! and > afterards filed their respective pre-trial "riefs.

The ensuing legal s(irmish is not relevant to the disposition of the instant case. The "ottom lineis that, on arch #%, #33$, the RTC came out ith its decision 6holding that R.;. >o. 6&75, asamended, did not a"olish the I> "ut merel+ provided for the a"sorption of its police functions"+ the >, and accordingl+ rendered @udgment for the I> retirees, to itA

'B2R2F!R2, this Court here"+ renders 8G=)2>T =2C1;RI>) the I> Retirees entitled tothe same or identical retirement "enefits and such other "enefits "eing granted, accorded and"estoed upon the > Retirees under the > 1a /R; >o. 6&75, as amended0.

The respondents )overnment =epartments and ;gencies shall I2=I;T21D 2FF2CT andI122>T the proper ad@ustments on the I> RetireesP retirement and such other "enefits,R2TR!;CTI2 to its date of effectivit+, and R212;92 and ;D to the I> Retirees the duepa+ments of the amounts.

9! !R=2R2=.

!n ;pril #, #33$, the trial court issued hat it denominated as 9upplement to the =ecisionhereunder it granted the )9I9P motion to dismiss and thus considered the "asic petition asithdran ith respect to the latter.

From the adverse decision of the trial court, the remaining respondents, namel+, =, >,>;!1C! and C9C, interposed an appeal to the C; hereat their appellate recourse asdoc(eted as C;-).R. C >o. 7#3$.

;s stated at the threshold hereof, the C;, in its decision of 8ul+ 7, #335, 7affirmed that of the trialcourt upholding the entitlement of the I> retirees to the same or identical retirement "enefitsaccorded upon > retirees under R.;. >o. 6&75, as amended.

Their motion for reconsideration having "een denied "+ the C; in its e?uall+ assailed resolutionof ;ugust #4, #335,herein petitioners are no ith this Court via the instant recourse on theirsingular su"mission that -

TB2 C!GRT !F ;2;19 C!ITT2= ; 92RI!G9 2RR!R I> 1;' I> ;FFIRI>) TB2=2CI9I!> !F TB2 TRI;1 C!GRT >!T'ITB9T;>=I>) TB;T IT I9 C!>TR;RD T! 1;';>= 29T;1I9B2= 8GRI9RG=2>C2.

'e =2>D.

In the main, it is petitionersP posture that R.;. >o. 6&75 cl earl+ a"olished the I> and created inits stead a ne police force, the >. rescinding therefrom, petitioners contend that since the> is an organization entirel+ different from the I>, it follos that I> retirees never "ecame> mem"ers. 2rgo, the+ cannot avail themselves of the retirement "enefits accorded to >mem"ers under R.;. >o. 6&75 and its amendator+ la, R.;. >o. 55%.

; flash"ac( at histor+ is proper.

;s ma+ "e recalled, R.;. >o. 6&75 as enacted into la on =ecem"er %$, %&&3, or @ust a"outfour /40 +ears after the %&6 2dsa Revolution toppled don the dictatorship regime. 2gged on "+

the current sentiment of the times generated "+ the long period of martial rule during hich thepolice force, the C-I>, had a militar+ character, "eing then a ma@or service of the ;rmedForces of the hilippines, and invaria"l+ moved "+ a fresh constitutional mandate for theesta"lishment of one police force hich should "e national in scope and, most importantl+,purel+ civilian in character,&Congress enacted R.;. >o. 6&75 esta"lishing the > and placingit under the =epartment of Interior and 1ocal )overnment. To underscore the civilian characterof the >, R.;. >o. 6&75 made it emphaticall+ clear in its declaration of polic+ the folloingA

9ection #. =eclaration of polic+ - It is here"+ declared to "e the polic+ of the 9tate to promotepeace and order, ensure pu"lic safet+ and further strengthen local government capa"ilit+ aimed

toards the effective deliver+ of the "asic services to the citizenr+ through the esta"lishment of ahighl+ efficient and competent police force that is national in scope and civilian in character. "+ virtue of .=. >o. 765, hile 9ection6%3of the same la provides for the assumption "+ the > of the police functions of the I>and its a"sorption "+ the former, including its appropriations, funds, records, e?uipment, etc., as

ell as its personnel.%%;nd to govern the statutePs implementation, 9ection 5 of the ;ct spelledout the folloing a"sorption phasesA

hase I O 2arcotics Command, CI9, and the personnel of the technical services of the ;F

assigned ith the C to include the regular CI9 investigating agents and the operatives andagents of the >;!1C! Inspection. Investigation and Intelligence ranch, and the personnelof the a"sor"ed >ational ;ction Committee on ;nti-Bi@ac(ing />;C;B0 of the =epartment of>ational =efense to "e completed ithin si< /60 months from the date of the effectivit+ of this;ct. ;t the end of this phase, all personnel from the I>, C, ;F Technical 9ervices, >;C;B,and >;!1C! Inspection, Investigation and Intelligence ranch shall have "een covered "+official orders assigning them to the >, Fire and 8ail Forces "+ their respective units.

hase II O ;pproval of the ta"le of organization and e?uipment of all "ureaus and offices createdunder this ;ct, preparation and filling up of their staffing pattern, transfer of assets to the L=I1)Mand organization of the Commission, to "e completed ithin telve /%#0 months from theeffectivit+ date hereof. ;t the end of this phase, all personnel to "e a"sor"ed "+ the L=I1)M shallhave "een issued appointment papers, and the organized Commission and the > shall "efull+ operational.

The C officers and enlisted personnel ho have not opted to @oin the > shall "e reassignedto the ;rm+, >av+ or ;ir Force, or shall "e alloed to retire under e officer or enlisted personnel ma+, ithin the telve-month period from

the effectivit+ of this ;ct, retire and "e paid retirement "enefits corresponding to a position to/#0 ran(s higher than his present grade, su"@ect to the conditions that at the time he applies forretirement, he has rendered at least tent+ /#30 +ears of service and still has, at most, tent+-four /#40 months of service remaining "efore the compulsor+ retirement age as provided "+e, to ensure that no mem"er of the > shallsuffer an+ diminution in "asic longevit+ and incentive pa+s, alloances and retirement "enefitsdue them "efore the creations of the >, to "e completed ithin eighteen /%0 months from theeffectivit+ of this ;ct. as never, as posited "+ the petitioners,a"olished or terminated out of e. Instead, hat the laprovides is for the a"sorption, transfer, andEor merger of the I>, as ell as the otheroffices comprising the C-I>, ith the >. To a"olish is to do aa+ ith, to annul, a"rogate

or destro+ completel+:%#to a"sor" is to assimilate, incorporate or to ta(e in.%$erge means tocause to com"ine or unite to "ecome legall+ a"sor"ed or eo. 6&75 spea(s of the I> LceasingM to e "eing a"sor"ed "+ the >. 7a"%i7.net

Far from "eing a"olished then, the I>, at the most, as merel+ transformed to "ecome the>, minus of course its militar+ character and comple structure. The rationale "ehind the passage of

R.;. >o. 6&75 as ade?uatel+ articulated "+ no less than the sponso r%6

of the correspondingBouse "ill in his sponsorship speech, thusA

+ removing the police force from under the control and supervision of militar+ officers, the "illsee(s to restore and underscore the civilian character of police or( - an otherise universalconcept that as muddled up "+ the martial la +ears.

Indeed, ere the legislative intent as for the I>Ps a"olition such that nothing ould "e left of it,the ord a"olish or hat passes for it could have easil+ found its a+ into the ver+ te corps @oin the >, then the C-I> ill necessaril+ "e a"olished, for ho then ould"e its mem"ers !f more conse?uence, the lama(ers ere one in sa+ing that there shouldnever "e to national police agencies at the same time.

'ith the conclusion herein reached that the I> as not in fact a"olished "ut as merel+transformed to "ecome the >, mem"ers of the I> hich include the herein respondents are,

therefore, not eo. 55%. It ma+ "ethat respondents ere no longer in the government service at the time of the enactment of R.;.>o. 6&75. This fact, hoever, ithout more, ould not pose as an impediment to therespondentsP entitlement to the ne retirement scheme set forth under the aforecited sections.;s correctl+ ratiocinated "+ the C; to hich e are in full accordA

For sure, R.;. >o. 6&75 as not a retroactive statute since it did not impose a ne o"ligation topa+ the I> retirees the difference "eteen hat the+ received hen the+ retired and hat

ould no "e due to them after R.;. >o. 6&75 as enacted. 2ven so, that did not render theRTCPs interpretation of R.;. >o. 6&75 an+ less valid. The LrespondentsPM retirement prior to thepassage of R.;. >o. 6&75 did not eo. 6&75, asamended "+ R.;. >o. 55%, since their mem"ership in the I> as an antecedent fact thatnonetheless alloed them to avail themselves of the "enefits of the su"se?uent las. R.;. >o.

Page 15of 29
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_169466_2007.html#fnt18


16/29

6&75 considered them as > mem"ers, ala+s referring to their mem"ership and service inthe I> in providing for their retirement "enefits. %&

etitioners maintain, hoever, that >;!1C! Resolution >o. , #3particularl+ 9ection%%#%thereof, "ars the pa+ment of an+ differential in retirement pa+ to officers and non-officers

ho are alread+ retired prior to the effectivit+ of R.;. >o. 6&75.

The contention does not commend itself for concurrence.

Gnder the amendator+ la /R.;. >o. 55%0, the application of rationalized retirement "enefits to> mem"ers ho have meanhile retired "efore its /R.;. >o. 55%0 enactment as notprohi"ited. In fact, its 9ection $ ##eo. 6&75. For,as afore-held, the I> as, in effect, merel+ a"sor"ed "+ the > and not a"olished.

Indeed, to "ar pa+ment of retirement pa+ differential to I> mem"ers ho ere alread+ retired"efore R.;. >o. 6&75 "ecame effective ould even run counter to the purpose of >;!1C!Resolution >o. itself, as eo. 6&75 and .=. >o. %%40 of the different components thereof to ensure thatno mem"er of the > shall suffer an+ diminution in the retirement "enefits due them "efore thecreation of the >.#$

ost importantl+, the perceived restriction could not plausi"l+ preclude the respondents fromasserting their entitlement to retirement "enefits ad@usted to the level hen R.;. >o. 6&75 too(effect. 9uch ad@ustment hes ith the constitutional arrant that the 9tate shall, from time totime, revie to upgrade the pensions and other "enefits due to retirees of "oth the governmentand private sectors,#4and the implementing mandate under the 9enior CitizenPs 1a #5that to

the enon6officers of t%e !$! s%all be subject to adjustments based on t%e "revailin/ scale of base "ay of

"olice "ersonnel in t%e active service.

Then, too, is the all familiar rule thatA

Retirement las should "e li"erall+ construed in favor of the retiree "ecause their intention is toprovide for his sustenance and hopefull+, even comfort, hen he no longer has the stamina tocontinue earning his livelihood. The li"eral approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposesof the la in order that efficienc+, securit+ and ell-"eing of government emplo+ees ma+ "eenhanced.#6

The petitioners parla+ the notion of prospective application of statutes, noting in this regard thatR.;. >o. 6&75, as amended, cannot "e applied retroactivel+, there "eing no provision to thateffect.

'e are not persuaded.

;s correctl+ found "+ the appellate court, R.;. >o. 6&75 itself conteo, there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declarator+ relief that proscri"esthe filing of a counterclaim "ased on the same transaction, deed or contract su"@ect of thecomplaint. ; special civil action is after all not essentiall+ different from an ordinar+ civil action,

hich is generall+ governed "+ Rules % to 56 of the Rules of Court, e


17/29


18/29

%. Fishing "+ means of trals /utase, otter andEor perenzella0 of an+ (ind, in theaters comprised ithin 9an iguel a+, is here"+ prohi"ited.

#. Tral shall mean, for the purpose of this !rder, a fishing net made in the formof a "ag ith the mouth (ept open "+ a device, the hole affair "eing toed,dragged, trailed or traled on the "ottom of the sea to capture demersal, groundor "ottom species.

$. iolation of the provisions of this !rder shall su"@ect the offender to the penalt+provided under 9ection $ of ;ct 4&&$, or more than si< months, or "oth, in thediscretion of the Court.

=one in the Cit+ of anila, this 5th da+ of ;pril, nineteen hundred and fift+-fourand of the Independence of the hilippines, the eighth. /53 !ff. )az. %4#%0

2H2CGTI2 !R=2R >o. 66

;2>=I>) 2H2CGTI2 !R=2R >o. ##, =;T2= ;RI1 5, %&54, 2>TIT12=R!BIITI>) TB2 G92 !F TR;'19 I> 9;> I)G21 ;D

+ virtue of the poers voted in me "+ la, I, R;!> ;)9;D9;D, residentof the hilippines, do here"+ amend 2o. ##, dated ;pril 5, %&54,so as to allo fishing "+ means of trals, as defined in said 2o. 3.

FGRTB2R ;2>=I>) 2H2CGTI2 !R=2R >o. ##, =;T2= ;RI1 5, %&54,;9 ;2>=2= D 2H2CGTI2 !R=2R >o. 66, =;T2= 92T22R #$,%&54.

+ virtue of the poers vested in me "+ la, I, R;!> ;)9;D9;D, residentof the hilippines, do here"+ amend 2o. 66 dated 9eptem"er#$, %&54, so as to allo fishing "+ means of trals, as defined in 2o. ##, dated ;pril 5, %&54, ithin the portion of 9an iguel a+ >orth of astraight line dran from Tacu"tacu"an Bill in the unicipalit+ of ercedes,rovince of Camarines >orte to aloc"aloc oint in the unicipalit+ of Tinam"ac,rovince of Camarines 9ur, until =ecem"er $%, %&54, onl+.

Thereafter, the provisions of said 2o. ## a"solutel+ prohi"itingfishing "+ means of trals in all the aters comprised ithin the 9an iguel a+shall "e revived and given full force and effect as originall+ provided therein.

=one in the Cit+ of anila, this #nd d a+ of >ovem"er, in the +ear of !ur 1ord,nineteen hundred and fift+-four and of the Independence of the hilippines, theninth. /53 !ff. )az. 5%&0

It is li(eise admitted that petitioners assailed the validit+ of said eatural Resources and the =irector of

Fisheries to post a "ond for $3,333 if the rit of in@unction restraining them from enforcing thee8G>CTI!>, R2C2I2R9BI ;>= ;T2>T ;CC!G>TI>), >!T9T;D2=. S Gnless otherise ordered "+ the court, a @udgment in an action forin@unction or in a receivership action, or a @udgment or order directing anaccounting in an action for infringement of letter patent, shall not "e sta+ed afterits rendition and "efore an appeal is ta(en or during the pendenc+ of an appeal.The trial court, hoever, in its discretion, hen an appeal is ta(en from a

@udgement granting, dissolving or den+ing an in@unction, ma+ ma(e an ordersuspending, modif+ing, restoring, or granting such in@unction during the pendenc+of an appeal, upon such terms as to "ond or otherise as it ma+ consider properfor the securit+ of the rights of the adverse part+.

This provision as the "asis of the order of the loer court dated Fe"ruar+ %&, %&55, re?uiringthe filing "+ the respondents of a "ond for $3,333 as a condition for the non-issuance of thein@unction pra+ed for "+ plaintiffs therein, and hich the 9olicitor )eneral charged to have "eenissued in eegros 9ugar Co.,Inc.vs.9erafin Bidalgo, 6$ hil., 6640. There is no ?uestion that at least %% of the complainingtral operators ere dul+ licensed to operate in an+ of the national aters of the hilippines, andit is undenia"le that the eatural Resources, and, =eogracias illadolid, as =irector of Fisheries, and ere sued in suchcapacities "ecause the+ ere the officers charged ith dut+ of carr+ing out the statutes, ordersand regulations on fishing and fisheries. In its order of Fe"ruar+ %&, %&55, the trial court denieddefendants motion to set aside @udgment and the+ ere re?uired to file a "ond for $3,333 toanser for damages that plaintiffs ere allegedl+ suffering at that time, as otherise thein@unction pra+ed for "+ the latter ould "e issued.

ecause of these facts, 'e agree ith the 9olicitor )eneral hen he sa+s that the action, "eingone against herein petitioners as such )overnment officials, is essentiall+ one against the)overnment, and to re?uire these officials to file a "ond ould "e indirectl+ a re?uirementagainst the )overnment for as regards "onds or damages that ma+ "e proved, if an+, the realpart+ in interest ould "e the Repu"lic of the hilippines /1. 9. oon and Co. vs.Barrison, 4$hi., $&: 9algado vs.Ramos, 64 hil., 7#4-7#7, and others0. The reason for this pronouncementis understanda"le: the 9tate undou"tedl+ is ala+s solvent /Tolentino vs.Carlos 66 hil., %43:)overnment of the . I. vs.8udge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, $4 hil., %67, cited in8oa?uin )utierrez et al. vs.Camus et al. V ).R. >o. 1-67#5, promulgated !cto"er $3, %&540.Boever, as the records sho that herein petitioners failed to put up the "ond re?uired "+ theloer court, allegedl+ due to difficulties encountered ith the ;uditor )enerals !ffice /giving theimpression that the+ ere illing to put up said "ond "ut failed to do so for reasons "e+ond theircontrol0, and that the orders su"@ects of the prohi"ition and certiorariproceedings in ).R. >o. 1-&5, ere enforced, if at all, # in accordance ith section 4 of Rule $&, hich 'e hold to "eapplica"le to the case at "ar, the issue as to the regularit+ or ade?uac+ of re?uiring hereinpetitioners to post a "ond, "ecomes moot and academic.

II. assing upon the ?uestion involved in the second proposition, the trial @udge e) includes pursuing, shooting, (illing, capturing, trapping,snaring, and netting fish and other a?uatic animals, and all lesser acts, suchas disturbin/, ounding, stupef+ing: or placing, setting, draing, or using an+ netor other device commonl+ used to ta(e or collect fish and other a?uaticanimals, 3%et%er t%ey result in takin/ or not, and includes ever+ attempt to ta(eand ever+ act of assistance to ever+ other person in ta(ing or attempting to ta(e

Page 18of 29


19/29

or collect fish and other a?uatic animalsA R!I=2=, That henever ta(ing isalloed "+ la, reference is had to ta(ing "+ laful means and in laful manner.

< < < < < < < < !F FRD !R FI9B 2))9. S 2o. 433$ further provides as follosA

92C. $. !TB2R I!1;TI!>9. S ;n+ other violation of the provisions of this;ct or an+ rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall su"@ect the

offender to a fine of not more than to hundred pesos, or imprisonment for notmore than si< months, or "oth, in the discretion of the Court.

;s ma+ "e seen from the @ust ?uoted provisions, the la declares unlaful and fio. #467 S ).R.>o. 1-&%&% /2o. 433$ of the 1egislature, as amended "+ Commonealth ;ct >o.47%, hich have "een afore?uoted, 'e find that Congress /a0 declared it unlaful to ta(e orcatch fr+ or fish eggs in the territorial aters of the hilippines: /"0 toards this end, it authorizedthe 9ecretar+ of ;griculture and >atural Resources to provide "+ the regulations suchrestrictions as ma+ "e deemed necessar+ to "e imposed on t%e use of any fis%in/ net or fis%in/device for t%e "rotection of fis% fry or fis% e//s /9ec. %$0: /c0 it authorized the 9ecretar+ of;griculture and >atural Resources to set aside and esta"lish fisher+ reservations or fish refugesand sanctuaries to "e administered in the manner to "e prescri"ed "+ him and declared itunla3ful for any "erson to take, destroy or kill in any of said "laces, or, in any manner disturb or

Page 19of 29


20/29

drive a3ay or take t%erefrom, any fis% fry or fis% e//s /9ee. 750: and /d0 it penalizes theeo. 433$0 or of an+ rulesand regulations promulgated thereunder, ma(ing the offender su"@ect to a fine of not more than#33, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or "oth, in the discretion of the court /9ec.$0.

From the foregoing it ma+ "e seen that in so far as the protection of fish fr+ or fish egg isconcerned, the Fisheries ;ct is complete in itself, leaving to the 9ecretar+ of ;griculture and>atural Resources the promulgation of rules and regulations to carr+ into effect the legislativeintent. It also appears from the eaturalResources to provide "+ regulations such restrictions as he deemed necessar+ in order topreserve the a?uatic resources of the land. Conse?uentl+, hen the resident, in response tothe clamor of the people and authorities of Camarines 9ur issued 2o. 3a"solutel+ prohi"iting fishing "+ means of trals in all aters comprised ithin the 9an iguela+, he did nothing "ut sho an an


21/29

LU4+IMINDA A+ILA, GL!RIA !LAIR, L!RITA MENCIA, RENAT! ARIETA, EDITAACU4AR, LE!NARDA +ILLACAMPA, ELIA ARDINIC!, %!%IN! NAMUAG, "ELIM!NNAMUAG, EDGAR CA%UN!C, ELEN ARGUELLE, ELEN ANG, "ELECIDAD PRIET!,

LUIIT! GRECIA, LILI%ET PARING, RU%EN CAMAC!, R!ALINDA LALUNA, LU4$AP, R!GELI! LAPUT, R!EMARIE WEE, TAC!TCE RANAIN, A+ELIN! DEL! RE$Ea)* R!GAIAN! !R!PE4A, Respondent.

In this petition for revie on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner ivencio .8umamil see(s to reverse the decision of the Court of ;ppeals dated 8ul+ #4, #333 %in C;-).R.C >o. $53#, the dispositive portion of hich readA

'ith the foregoing, the assailed =ecision of ranch 4, Regional Trial Court of ana"o =avaodated #6 >ovem"er %&&3 in 9p. Civil ;ction >o. &-% is here"+ ;FFIR2= .#

The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitionerPs petition for declarator+ relief ith pra+er forpreliminar+ in@unction and rit of restraining order, and ordered the petitioner to pa+ attorne+Psfees in the amount of %,333 to each of the 57 private respondents .$

The factual antecedents follo.

In %&&, petitioner 8umamil4filed "efore the Regional Trial Court /RTC0 of ana"o, =avao del>orte a petition for declarator+ relief ith pra+er for preliminar+ in@unction and rit of restrainingorder against pu"lic respondents a+or 8ose 8. Cafe and the mem"ers of the 2an//unian/#ayanof ana"o, =avao del >orte. Be ?uestioned the constitutionalit+ of unicipal Resolution>o. 7, 9eries of %&& /Resolution >o. 70.

Resolution >o. 7, enacting ;ppropriation !rdinance >o. %%%, provided for an initial appropriationof 765,333 for the construction of stalls around a proposed terminal fronting the ana"o u"licar(et5hich as destro+ed "+ fire.

9u"se?uentl+, the petition as amended due to the passage of Resolution >o. 4&, series of%&& /Resolution >o. 4&0, denominated as !rdinance >o. %3, appropriating a further amountof %,5%5,333 for the construction of additional stalls in the same pu"lic mar(et. 6

rior to the passage of these resolutions, respondent a+or Cafe had alread+ entered intocontracts ith those ho advanced and deposited /ith the municipal treasurer0 from their

personal funds the sum of 43,333 each. 9ome of the parties ere close friends andEor relativesof the pu"lic respondents. 7The construction of the stalls hich petitioner sought to stop throughthe preliminar+ in@unction in the RTC as nevertheless finished, rendering the pra+er thereformoot and academic. The leases of the stalls ere then aarded "+ pu"lic raffle hich, hoever,

as limited to those ho had deposited 43,333 each.Thus, the petition as amended ane toinclude the 57 aardees of the stalls as private respondents .&

etitioner alleges that Resolution >os. 7 and 4& ere unconstitutional "ecause the+ ereA

Upassed for the "usiness, occupation, en@o+ment and "enefit of private respondents hodeposited the amount of 43,333.33 for each stall, and ith hom also the ma+or had a priorcontract to aard the ould "e constructed stalls to all private respondents.U ;s admitted "+pu"lic respondents some of the private respondents are close friends andEor relatives of some of

the pu"lic respondents hich ma(es the ?uestioned acts discriminator+. The ?uestionedresolutions and ordinances did not provide for an+ notice of pu"lication that the special privilegeand unarranted "enefits conferred on the private respondents ma+"e / sic0 availed of "+an+"od+ ho can deposit the amount of 43,333.33.%3

>either as there an+ prior notice or pu"lication pertaining to contracts entered into "+ pu"licand private respondents for the construction of stalls to "e aarded to private respondents thatthe same can "e availed of "+ an+"od+ illing to deposit 43,333.33.%%

In this petition, petitioner pra+s for the reversal of the decision of the Court of ;ppeals /C;0 anda declaration of the unconstitutionalit+, illegalit+ and nullit+ of the ?uestionedresolutionsEordinances and lease contracts entered into "+ the pu"lic and private respondents:for the declaration of the illegalit+ of the aard of the stalls during the pendenc+ of this action

and for the re-raffling and aard of the stalls in a manner that is fair and @ust to all interestedapplicants:%#for the issuance of an order to the local government to admit an+ and all interestedpersons ho can deposit the amount of 43,333 for a stall and to order a re-raffling for theaard of the stalls to the inners of the re-raffle: for the nullification of the aard of attorne+Psfees to private respondents on the ground that it as erroneous and unmeritorious: and for theaard of damages in favor of petitioner in the form of attorne+Ps fees .%$

;t the outset, e must point out that the issue of the constitutionalit+ of the ?uestionedresolutions as never ruled upon "+ "oth the RTC and the C;.

It appears that on a+ #%, %&&3, "oth parties agreed%4to aait the decision in C; ).R. 9 >o.#34#4,%5hich involved similar facts, issues and parties. The RTC, conse?uentl+, deferred theresolution of the pending petition. The appellate court eventuall+ rendered its decision in thatcase finding that the petitioners ere not entitled to the declarator+ relief pra+ed for as the+ hadno legal interest in the controvers+. Gpon elevation to the 9upreme Court as G= Case >o.&&4, the petition for revie on certiorari as denied for "eing insufficient in form andsu"stance.%6

The RTC, after receipt of the entr+ of the 9C @udgment, %7dismissed the pending petition on>ovem"er #6, %&&3. It adopted the ruling in C; ).R. 9 >o. #34#4A< < < < < < < < o. &-% is here"+ ;FFIR2=.9! !R=2R2=.#3

Thus, "oth the RTC and the C; dismissed the case on the ground of petiti onerPs lac( of legalstanding and the partiesP agreement to "e "ound "+ the decision in C; ).R. 9. >o. #34#4.

The issues to "e resolved are the folloingA/%0 hether the parties ere "ound "+ the outcome in C; ).R. 9. >o. #34#4:/#0 hether petitioner had the legal standing to "ring the petition for declarator+ relief:/$0 hether Resolution >os. 7 and 4& ere unconstitutional: and/40 hether petitioner should "e held lia"le for damages.

ocus *tandi a)* h/ Co)(''o)a&' I((/

'e ill first consider the second issue. The petition for declarator+ relief challenged theconstitutionalit+ of the su"@ect resolutions. There is an un"ending rule that courts ill not assume

@urisdiction over a constitutional ?uestion unless the folloing re?uisites are satisfiedA /%0 theremust "e an actual case calling for the eo.%3 dated !cto"er %3, %&$7and that all the people interested ere invited to participate ininvesting their savings.$

'e note that the foregoing as a disputed fact hich the courts "elo did not resolve "ecausethe case as dismissed on the "asis of petitionerPs lac( of legal standing. >evertheless,petitioner failed to prove the su"@ect ordinances and agreements to "e discriminator+.Considering that he as as(ing this Court to nullif+ the acts of the local political department ofana"o, =avao del >orte, he should have clearl+ esta"lished that such ordinances operatedunfairl+ against those ho ere not notified and ho ere thus not given the opportunit+ toma(e their deposits. Bis unsu"stantiated allegation that the pu"lic as not notified did notsuffice. Furthermore, there as the time-honored presumption of regularit+ of official dut+,a"sent an+ shoing to the contrar+.$&;nd this is not to mention thatA

The polic+ of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional ?uestions and to presume that theacts of the political departments are valid, a"sent a clear and unmista(a"le shoing to thecontrar+. To dou"t is to sustain. This presumption is "ased on the doctrine of separation ofpoers. This means that the measure had first "een carefull+ studied "+ the legislative and

eo. $53# ishere"+ A""IRMED ith theM!DI"ICATI!Nthat the aard of attorne+s fees to privaterespondents is deleted. Costs against petitioner. ! !RDERED.

Page 22of 29
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_144570_2005.html#fnt46


23/29

RULE 65 CERTI!RARI

G.R. No. 816 Ma 12, 1989+ICT!RIN! C. "RANCIC!, petitioner,vs.WINAI PERMUL a)* TE !N. C!URT !" APPEAL, respondents.

;n important constitutional ?uestion has "een in@ected in this case hich started out as anordinar+ complaint for a sum of mone+. The ?uestion s?uarel+ presented to the Court is thevalidit+ of the memorandum decision authorized under 9ection 43 of .. lg. %#& in the light of;rticle III, 9ection %4 of the Constitution.

!n a+ #%, %&4, the petitioner leased his apartment in a(ati to the private respondent for aperiod of one +ear for the stipulated rental of $,333.33 a month. ursuant to the lease contract,the private respondent deposited ith the petitioner the amount of &,333.33 to anser forunpaid rentals or an+ damage to the leased premises eo petition for revie or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall "e refuseddue course or denied ithout stating the legal "asis therefor.

2o. &46, providing thatA

;ll cases of the Court of ;grarian Relations no pending "efore the Court of ;ppeals shallremain in the =ivision to hich the+ have "een assigned, and shall "e decided ithin sio. &46 and 9ection 43 of .. lg. %#&.

>evertheless, he as ?uic( to add a tena"le misgiving and to e


24/29


25/29

G.R. N!. 1651 a)ar 31, 27

NEW "R!NTIER UGAR C!RP!RATI!N, etitioner,vs.REGI!NAL TRIAL C!URT, %RANC 39, IL!IL! CIT$ a)* EUITA%LE PCI%AN,Respondents.

D E C I I ! N

AUTRIA-MARTINE4,J.:

In the present petition for revie under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner assails thedecision of the Court of ;ppeals /C;0 %in C;-).R. 9 >o. 767$, dismissing its special civilaction for certiorari and affirming the dismissal orders dated 8anuar+ %$, #33$ and ;pril %4, #33$issued "+ the Regional Trial Court /RTC0 of Iloilo Cit+, ranch $&, acting as a specialcommercial court, in Civil Case >o. 3#-#7#7.

;s "orne "+ the records, >e Frontier 9ugar Corporation /petitioner0 is a domestic corporationengaged in the "usiness of ra sugar milling. Foreseeing that it cannot meet its o"ligations ithits creditors as the+ fell due, petitioner filed a etition for the =eclaration of 9tate of 9uspensionof a+ments ith ;pproval of roposed Reha"ilitation lan under the Interim Rules ofrocedure on Corporate Reha"ilitation /#3330 some time in ;ugust #33# .#Finding the petition to"e sufficient in form and su"stance, the RTC issued a 9ta+ !rder dated ;ugust #3, #33#,appointing anuel . Clemente as reha"ilitation receiver, ordering the latter to put up a "ond,and setting the initial hearing on the petition .$

!ne of petitionerPs creditors, the 2?uita"le CI an( /respondent "an(0, filed aCommentE!pposition ith otion to 2 =I9I99I>) TB2 2TITI!> F!RC2RTI!R;RI FI12= 2F!R2 IT ;9 IR!2R, ;2;1 2I>) ;>;;I1;12 R22=D.&

The Court denies the petition.

Reha"ilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore

and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation andsolvenc+.%3resentl+, the applica"le la on reha"ilitation petitions filed "+ corporations,partnerships or associations,%%including reha"ilitation cases transferred from the 9ecurities and2otan+one of them should "e given an+ preference "+ pa+ing one or some of them ahead of theothers. This is precisel+ the reason for the suspension of all pending claims against thecorporation under receivership. Instead of creditors veevertheless, the suspension of the enforcement of all claims against the corporation is su"@ectto the rule that ' (ha&& co/)c/ o)& =ro h/ '/ h/ R/ha'&'a'o) R/c/'>/r '(a00o')/*. Thus, in Rizal Commercial an(ing Corporation v. Intermediate ;ppellateCourt,%6the Court upheld the right of RCC to e


26/29

40 Initial hearing on an+ matter relating to the petition or on an+ comment andEoropposition filed in connection thereith. I= h/ r'a& cor '( (a'(='/* ha h/r/'( /r' ') h/ 0/''o), ' (ha&& ;'>/ */ cor(/ o h/ 0/''o):#4

50 Referral for evaluation of the reha"ilitation plan to the reha"ilitation receiverho shall su"mit his recommendations to the court:#5

60 odifications or revisions of the reha"ilitation plan as necessar+ :#6

70 9u"mission of final reha"ilitation plan to the trial court for approval: #7

0 ;pprovalEdisapproval of reha"ilitation plan "+ the trial court :#

In the present case, the petition for reha"ilitation did not run its full course "ut as dismissed "+the RTC after due consideration of the pleadings filed "efore it. !n this score, the RTC cannot"e faulted for its summar+ dismissal, as it is tantamount to a finding that there is no merit to thepetition. This is in accord ith the trial courtPs authorit+ to give due course to the petition or notunder Rule 4, 9ection & of the Interim Rules. 1etting the petition go through the process onl+ to"e dismissed later on "ecause there are no assets to "e conserved ill not onl+ defeat thereason for the rules "ut ill also "e a aste of the trial courtPs time and resources.

The C; also correctl+ ruled that petitioner availed of the rong remed+ hen it filed a specialcivil action for certiorari ith the C; under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Certiorari is a remed+ for the correction of errors of @urisdiction, not errors of @udgment. It is anoriginal and independent action that as not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition ofthe @udgment or order complained of. ore importantl+, since the issue is @urisdiction, an originalaction for certiorari ma+ "e directed against an ')/r&ocor or*/rof the loer court prior to anappeal from the @udgment: or here there is no appeal or an+ plain, speed+ or ade?uate remed+.

; petition for certiorari should "e filed not later than sio. 33--%3-9C promulgated "+ the Court on 9eptem"er 4, #33% providesthat a petition for reha"ilitation is considered a special proceeding given that it see(s to esta"lishthe status of a part+ or a particular fact. ;ccordingl+, the period of appeal provided in paragraph%& /"0 of the Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of atas am"ansa lg. %#& forspecial proceedings shall appl+. Gnder said paragraph %& /"0, the period of appeal shall "e thirt+/$30 da+s, a record of appeal "eing re?uired.

Boever, it should "e noted that the Court issued ;.. >o. 34-&-37-9C on 9eptem"er %4, #334,clarif+ing the proper mode of appeal in cases involving corporate reha"ilitation and intra-

corporate controversies. It is provided therein that all decisions and final orders in cases fallingunder the Interim Rules of Corporate Reha"ilitation and the Interim Rules of rocedure)overning Intra-Corporate Controversies under Repu"lic ;ct >o. 7&& shall "e appealed to theC; through a petition for revie under Rule 4$ of the Rules of Court to "e filed ithin fifteen /%50da+s from notice of the decision or final order of the RTC.

In an+ event, as previousl+ stated, since hat petitioner filed as a petition for certiorari underRule 65 of the Rules, the C; rightl+ dis missed the petition and affirmed the assailed !rders.

WERE"!RE, the petition is DENIEDfor lac( of merit.

Costs against petitioner. 9! !R=2R2=.

Page 26of 29
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165001_2007.html#fnt29


27/29

G.R. No. 13791 D/c//r , 22

!N!N LEE a)* !NN$ M!REN!,petitioners,vs.PE!PLE !" TE PILIPPINE a)* h/ C!URT !" APPEAL,respondents.

= 2 C I 9 I ! >

C!R!NA, J.:

efore us is a petition for revie on c ertiorari under Rule 45 of the %&&7 Rules of Civil rocedureof the decision%dated ;ugust #4, %&& of the Court of ;ppeals #dismissing the petition forcertiorari of the orders dated 8une #7, %&&6 $and 8une #, %&&6, respectivel+, of the RegionalTrial Court, ranch 53, acolod Cit+ in Criminal Cases >os. %33%3 and %33%%.

The undisputed facts as found "+ the appellate court are as follosA

etitioners 8ohnson 1ee and 9onn+ oreno ere charged "+ >eugene ar(eting, Inc. />I, for"revit+0, through its designated trustee, ;tt+. Roger . Re+es, ith the crime of estafa ith a"useof confidence "efore the !ffice of the Cit+ rosecutor, acolod Cit+. !n =ecem"er %4, %&, theCit+ rosecutor issued a resolution a"solving the petitioners from criminal lia"ilit+ due to lac( ofmalice on the part of the petitioners in retaining the mone+ of >I. The appeal "+ >I to the=epartment of 8ustice /=!8, for "revit+0 as denied on the ground that the petitioners did notmisappropriate corporate funds.

>I then filed a motion for reconsideration of the =!8 resolution. !n 8anuar+ 4, %&&%, the =!8,through then Gndersecretar+ 9ilvestre ello III, ordered the reinvestigation of the case. Gponrecommendation of Cit+ rosecutor ;ugusto C. Rallos on arch &, %&&% to charge thepetitioners ith estafa, Criminal Case >os. %33%3 and %33%% ere filed.

The petitioners, on a+ 4 and #% of %&, filed at the =!8 petitions for reinvestigation of thecases "ut the same ere denied on the ground that the trial courts permission should first "esecured "efore reinvestigation can "e conducted in accordance ith this Courts ruling in Crespo

vs. ogul.4

etitioners then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings "efore the trial court onthe ground that there as a need for reinvestigation and there as a pre@udicial ?uestion in a9ecurities 2o. %%#&4%. The 92C case ?uestions the validit+ of the dissolution of >I and thedesignation of ;tt+. Re+es as trustee.

Initiall+, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the =!8 to conduct areinvestigation. ut, on motion for reconsideration "+ the prosecutor, the trial court reverseditself, set aside the previous order and scheduled the arraignment of the petitioners. !n 8anuar+%&, %&&6, the petitioners filed another motion to suspend the proceedings, "ased on the sameground that the pre@udicial ?uestion in the 92C case ould determine the petitioners guilt in thecriminal cases, there"+ necessitating the suspension of the same.

!n 8une #7, %&&6, the trial court rendered the first assailed order den+ing petitioners motion tosuspend the proceedings. ;rraignment as scheduled on 8une #, %&&6. ut on the da+ of thearraignment, petitioner 1ee failed to appear. The trial court then issued the second assailedorder, directing the issuance of a arrant of arrest and fiI2=. u"licrespondent is here"+ !rdered to proceed ith deli"erate speed in the hearing and trial ofCriminal Cases >os. %33%3 and %33%%.

9! !R=2R2=.5

In dismissing the said petition, the appellate court ruled thatA

In the criminal cases, the ?uestion is hether petitioners misappropriatedthe %,533,%53.33 corporate funds hich as paid to the private respondentthrough petitioners. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that upon demand,petitioners failed to deliver the same.

In ).R. >o. %%#&4% "efore the 9upreme Court, the validit+ of the dissolution ofthe >uegene /sic0 Corporation is in issue.

'ith these in mind, 'e do not see ho the resolution of the issue in the civilcase ould necessaril+ "e determinative of petitioners criminal lia"ilit+ for 2stafa.

It is to "e emphasized that even if the dissolution of the >eugene Corporation isto "e declared void and petitioners are still to "e considered resident and9ecretar+ of >uegene /sic0 Corporation, still petitioners ma+ "e found lia"le forthe misappropriation of the corporate funds. The fact that petitioners are theresident and 9ecretar+ of the >uegene /sic0 Corporation does not mean thatthe+ could not "e held lia"le for 2stafa ith ;"use of Confidence, if the+ did infact misappropriate the corporate fund for personal use. The crime of 2stafa iscommitted hen a person shall defraud another "+ an+ means mentioned in;rticle $%5 of the Revised enal Code. This is true hether or not such person isan officer of the corporation defrauded.

Thus, the issue in ).R. >o %%#4% does not in an+a+ pose a pre@udicial?uestion to the criminal cases for 2stafa against petitioners. Thus, there is no

@ustifia"le reason h+ the proceedings in Criminal Cases >o. %33%3 and %33%%should "e suspended.

< < < < < < < <


28/29

Corporation from >I. The+ refused to turn over the mone+ to the trustee after >Is dissolutionon the ground that the+ ere (eeping the mone+ for the protection of the corporation itself. Thus,the elements of misappropriation and damage are a"sent. The+ argue that there is no proof that,as officers of the corporation, the+ converted the said amount for their on personal "enefit.The+ li(eise claim that the+ alread+ turned the mone+ over to the ma@orit+ stoc(holder of thedefunct corporation.

Clearl+, the said allegations are defenses that must "e presented as evidence in the hearing ofthe criminal cases. The+ are inappropriate for consideration in a petition for certiorari "efore theappellate court inasmuch as the+ do not affect the @urisdi ction of the trial court hearing the saidcriminal cases "ut instead are defenses that might a"solve them from criminal lia"ilit+. ; petitionfor certiorari must "e "ased on @urisdictional grounds "ecause, as long as the respondent courtacted ith @urisdiction, an+ error committed "+ it in the eov. #4, %&&5/60 Grgent otion to =is?ualif+ rivate rosecutor >ov. #7, %&&5

II. !TI!>9 F!R R2I>29TI);TI!>/70 otion for Reinvestigation 8ul+ #6, %&&%/0 otion for Reinvestigation 8an. $3, %&

otion for 1eave to Conduct Comprehensive !ct.5, %&

RevieEReinvestigationThis motion as alread+ resolved "+ the previouspresiding 8udge, 2mma 1a"a+en, "ut assurreptitiousl+ raised again "efore the Bon. 8udgeRo"erto 9. Chiongson.

III. !TI!> T! JG;9BE=I9I99E9G92>= R!C22=I>)9/%%0 Consolidated otion to Juash 9ept, #5, %&&%/%#0 otion to 9uspend roceedings 8an. $3, %&/%$0 otion to =ismissE9uspend roceedings a+ #&, %&/%40 Grgent otion to Jualif+ rovisional =ismissal a+ $, %&&$/%50 otion to suspend Further roceedings 8une %&, %&&6

!TI!>9 T! R2C;11 ';RR;>T T! ;RR29T/%60 Grgent otion to 2>2H . This is the forerunnerof ).R. >o. %%#&4% no pending "efore the 9upreme Court.c. ; 9pecial Civil ;ction for Certiorari /etition for Certiorari androhi"ition0, involving the same issued ith a pra+erto suspendErestrain the proceedings filed "efore the Regional TrialCourt in acolod Cit+, doc(eted as 9pecial Civil Case >o. 646&

a+ "ac( in %&&% /!rder dated ;pril #&, %&&%, hereto attached as;>>2H C0.d. This as folloed "+ the filing of C;-)R. 9 >o. #7$73, acase for certiorari and in@unction ith another pra+er to restrainthe proceedings /Resolution dated 8ul+ #&, %&, hereto attachedas ;>>2H =0.

/pp. #-4, reliminar+ Comment0

It is important to stress that all the a"ove enumerated petitions, motions and cases have "een=2>I2= !R =I9I992=.%$

Clearl+, it as the petitioners themselves ho principall+ dragged and hindered the resolution ofthe criminal investigation and trial for estafa. The+ thus have no reason to complain against thedela+ in the disposition of their cases.

'e also agree ith the appellate court in ruling that there is no pre@udicial ?uestion that ouldcall for the suspension /or even dismissal0 of the case. The appellate court correctl+ held thatA


29/29

HG.R. No. 1829. /0//r 2, 22MICR!!"T C!RP!RATI!N,petitioner, -s. %ET DEAL C!MPUTER CENTER

C!RP!RATI!N, PER"ECT DEAL C!RP!RATI!N, MARC! C.$UEN *o'); (')/(( a( PER"ECT %$TE C!MPUTER CENTER a)* !N."L!RENTIN! M. ALUM%RE, ') h'( ca0ac' a( Pr/('*'); *;/, RTC-%r.255, La( P'Ja( C', respondents.

D E C I I ! N

%ELL!ILL! , J.

ICR!9!FT C!R!R;TI!> assails the !rder of 8udge Florentino . ;lum"res,RTC-r. #55, 1as iNas Cit+, dated #6 =ecem"er #33% in its Civil Case >o. 33-3#$7 den+ing itsapplication for an e:"arteorder for the seizure and impounding of relevant and infringingevidence and the !rder dated % arch #33% den+ing reconsideration thereof.

etitioner is a G9-"ased corporation. It is not doing "usiness in the hilippines "ut hassued in the court "elo solel+ to protect its intellectual propert+ rights.

!n 4 =ecem"er #333 petitioner filed a complaint for Injunction and +ama/es 3it% E:!arte 1""lication for 0em"orary Restrainin/ )rder and t%e !rovisional easure of ! reservationof Evidence against est =eal Computer Center Corporation, erfect =eal Corporation and

arcos C. Duen doing "usiness as erfect +te Computer Center. It alleged that defendantsithout authorit+ or li cense copied, reproduced, dis tri"uted, ins talled andEor loaded softareprograms oned "+ icrosoft into computer units sold "+ them to their customers in violation ofits intellectual propert+ rights. It pra+ed for the issuance of a rit of preliminar+ in@unction torestrain and en@oin defendants from illegall+ reproducing, selling and distri"uting unlicensedsoftare programs. It also applied for the issuance of an e: "arteorder for the seizure andimpounding of relevant evidence that can "e or ma+ "e found at defendants "usiness premises.

!n #6 =ecem"er #333 the 1as iNas trial court set petitioners pra+er for a temporar+restraining order for hearing "ut at the same time denied its application for an e:"arteorderratiocinating that the Intellectual ropert+ Code does not eTL%Mcannot prevail over it. The court a quo also opined that petitioners applicationpartoo( of a search and seizure order availa"le onl+ in criminal cases. etitioner moved forreconsideration "ut the same as denied on & 8anuar+ #33%.

In the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Courtpetitioner su"mits that the court a quogravel+ a"used its discretion amounting to lac( or e2=. Costs againstpetitioner.

! !RDERED.

Page 29of 29
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148029.htm#

specpro - cases - set 1

Documents