Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
L-17721 October 16, 1961 The trial of the case was set several times but was postponed at
the instance of defendants (petitioners herein). For the fifth time,
GREGORIO APELARIO, doing business under the style "GREGORIO neither the defendants nor counsel appeared. Accordingly, the
TRADING," plaintiff-appellee, vs. INES CHAVEZ & COMPANY, LTD., court granted a trial ex parte on motion of plaintiff’s counsel.
doing business under the style "FIDELITY MOTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY, LTD., and INES CHAVEZ, Defendants-Appellants.
The municipal trial court rendered judgment ordering
defendants Policarpio Galicia, Perfecto Galicia, Victorio Galicia,
FACTS:
Julian Galicia and Eduarda Galicia to restore to plaintiff
Amancio Palajos the portion of land and ordering the
Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against Ines Chavez &
defendants to pay to plaintiff a monthly rental in the amount of
Company, Ltd., a limited partnership, and its general partner,
FIFTY PESOS (P 50.00) on the premises in question for its use and
Ines Chavez. The defendant partnership had purchased on
occupation.
credit from plaintiff ten sets of axle assemblies for the sum of P2,
400.00
For failure of the defendants to pay the rentals adjudged in the
Defendant delivered in payment to the plaintiff two postdated forcible entry case, a writ of execution was issued and after levy,
cash checks for P1, 200.00 each, drawn against the Philippine the deputy sheriff of Calbayog City, on August 4, 1976, sold at
Bank of Commerce; that when the checks were presented for public auction the real property owned by petitioners' deceased
payment, they were dishonored for lack of funds. father adjoining the land subject of the forcible entry case
Plaintiff demanded payment in cash, but defendant refused to Over 14 months after the execution sale, petitioners filed a
pay. complaint for Ownership and Damages against herein
respondents in the Court of First Instance of Samar alleging that
Defendant filed an answer admitting the allegations of the they are co-owners of a certain parcel of agricultural land
complaint; admitting that plaintiff had demanded payment of (subject of the auction sale) which they inherited from their
P2,400, but pleaded that defendants could not pay the plaintiff, deceased father, Pedro Galicia.
because they have so many accounts receivables which have
not yet been paid to them, of which fact the defendant, was
duly informed by the plaintiff and thereby requested to wait a The complaint further alleged that pursuant to forcible entry
while. case, respondents were able to take possession of the land in
question as said case was heard ex-parte; and that a decision
Upon motion of the plaintiff, and over the objection of was rendered in respondents' favor and said decision was
defendants, the trial court rendered judgment on the pleadings, executed.
sentencing defendants to pay P2, 400.
In their Answer, respondents (defendants below) countered that
ISSUE: they were able to take possession of the land described in the
complaint by virtue of the decision and later, execution of the
Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgement on the decision in the forcible entry case, which, by petitioners'
pleadings. (plaintiffs below) averment in their complaint is an admission of
an existing judgment that would constitute res judicata; that they
are the lawful owners of the disputed land the same having
RULING: been subjected to levy and execution in 1975 thru a sale in favor
of respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Juan Palajos.
No. The defendants-appellants had admitted all the material
allegations of the complaint concerning the existence of the
At the pre-trial, counsel for private respondents file a motion for
debt and its non-payment. The pleaded excuse, that they had
summary judgment which was granted by respondent judge.
requested plaintiff to, wait because appellants’ many accounts
receivable had not yet been collected, is clearly no defense, for
a debtor cannot delay payment due just to suit its convenience. Defendants' (private respondents herein) motion for summary
judgment was filed alleging that no genuine issue exists in the
case at bar after the pre-trial was conducted and admission of
facts were had while plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed their
G.R. No. L-49668 November 14, 1989
opposition to the motion for summary judgment alleging among
others, that genuine issues exist.
POLICARPIO, LUCIO, JULIAN, CATALINO, BONIFACIO, CONRADA,
DOMINGO, PAQUITA, AND LILIA, ALL SURNAMED GALICIA,
The court rendered the summary judgment dismissing petitioners'
petitioners, vs.
complaint, the pertinent portion of which reads:
THE HON. WENCESLAO M. POLO, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge, CFI, Branch V, Samar (Calbayog City), ZOSIMA PALAJOS,
TITING LISTOJAS, ALFREDO PALAJOS, MANUELITO ROSIALDA, As demonstrated by the parties, there is no
respondents. question that the land in dispute is that parcel
described in paragraph 3 of the complaint, a
portion of which was a subject in a forcible
FACTS:
entry case before the Municipal Trial Court of
Almagro Samar (Exhibit 1, 2 and 3) with the
A complaint for forcible entry was filed in the Municipal Court of defendants now as successors-in-interest of
Almagro, Samar, alleging that Amancio Palajos is the owner and the plaintiff, and most of the herein plaintiffs
in actual possession of a parcel of land located at Bacjao, as defendants.
Almagro, Samar which he acquired by way of donation from his
father, Juan Palajos. It is further alleged that defendants
The pleadings also show that upon the death
(petitioners herein) forcibly entered the northeastern portion of
of the primitive owner, Pedro Galicia, the
the said property.
plaintiffs as children and grandchildren
possessed and owned this land pro-indiviso,
until the possession of said portion was need not be tried because they are so patently unsubstantial as
transferred to the defendants when the not to be genuine issues, or that there is no genuine issue as to
decision in that forcible entry case was any material facts or where the facts appear undisputed and
executed in 1976 (Exhibit 7) such being the certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and
case, therefore, with respect to this portion of affidavits.
the land in dispute, the possession is settled,
which would constitute as a bar to this action.
The disputed property is the same parcel of land, which adjoins
private respondents' lot which was the subject of the forcible
With respect to the other portion of the land in entry case and from which petitioners were ordered to vacate.
dispute, the plaintiffs admit that possession When petitioners (then defendants), failed to satisfy the rentals
was transferred to the defendant by virtue of adjudged in the forcible entry case, said adjoining parcel of
a sale executed by the sheriff; the one year land was sold at public auction to Juan Palajos (respondents'
period having elapsed without exercising their predecessor-in-interest) as the higher bidder in the execution
right of redemption, as a result a final deed of sale to satisfy the monetary judgment rendered therein. The
sale was issued. The legality of the sale not property so described in petitioners' complaint squarely fits what
having been assailed by them, for all intents has been levied upon and sold at public auction (Rollo, p. 30),
and purposes, ownership on this land has the owners of which are now private respondents upon the
been vested on the defendants as heirs of demise of their predecessor-in-interest.
Juan Palajos.
There is thus no question that issue of ownership of the disputed
ISSUE: land subject of the present petition has long been foreclosed in
the forcible entry case which culminated in the public auction
sale of the parcel of land now sought to be recovered. Having
Whether the trial court erred when it decided the civil case by
failed to redeem the property sold at the public auction sale
summary judgment.
within the reglementary period of twelve (12) months, petitioners
cannot now claim that they still own said property. Petitioners'
It is the contention of petitioners that the trial court erred in complaint for Ownership and Damages is but a belated and
deciding their complaint by summary judgment when there are disguised attempt to revive a judgment debtors' right of
several genuine issues involved therein which require a full trial redemption which has long expired. There being no issue as to
on the merits. any material fact raised in the pleadings, summary judgment
may be rendered.
1. The execution sale conducted by the Deputy Provincial Sheriff
was null and void and would have merited a trial on the merits.
G. R. No. 93219 August 30, 1990
2. Between Civil Case No. 56 and Civil Case No. 758-CC, there MARCELINO G. RIVERA, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
can be no res judicata, considering that there is no identity of PHILIPPINES and HON. MARCELINO F. BAUTISTA, JR.,
parties, cause of action and subject matter between the two
actions. Presiding Judge of the Reg ional Trial Court, Branch III, Baguio
City, Respondents.
RULING:
FACTS:
No. There is no reason to disturb the summary judgment
rendered by respondent judge.
Marcelino, G. Rivera, Jr. was arrested and detained for he
The Rules of Court authorizes the rendition of summary judgment
if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file together with allegedly was about to transport marijuana to Manila. A case for
the affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of damages, violation of R. A. 6425 was filed against him with the Regional Trial
there is no issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Court of Baguio City.
Summary judgment "is a device for weeding out sham claims or Petitioner was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the crime
defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the
expense and loss of time involved in a trial. The very object is 'to charged. The first witness for the prosecution, Cpl. Victorio
separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from Afalla, partially testified on direct examination and reserved the
what is genuine and substantial, so that only the latter may
subject a suitor to the burden of trial.' The test, therefore, of a right to identify the marijuana specimen allegedly confiscated
motion for summary judgment is-whether the pleadings, from the petitioner.
affidavits, and exhibits in support of the motion are sufficient to
overcome the opposing papers and to justify a finding as a
matter of law that there is no defense to the action or the claim is On June 8, 1989, for the same reasons, the hearing was re-set to
clearly meritorious".
February 27, 1990. On February 27, 1990, Capt. Lina Sarmiento,
In addition, summary judgment is one of the methods the Forensic Chemist, who will present the marijuana specimen,
sanctioned in the present Rules of Court for a prompt disposition
despite notice, failed to appear. Petitioner, through counsel,
of civil actions wherein there exists no serious controversy. The
procedure may be availed of not only by claimants, but also by then moved for the dismissal of the case. This was denied by
defending parties who may be the object of unfounded claims.
respondent Judge and the hearing was re-set to March 28, 1990.
A motion for summary judgment assumes that scrutinizing the
facts will disclose that the issues presented by the pleadings
Rosemarie Manese filed with the trial court a petition for writ of
On March 28, 1990, when the case was called at about 8:30
habeas corpus against petitioner Renato Suarez, his mother Paz
a.m. Capt. Lina Sarmiento despite notice, was not around Suarez and his sister Milagros Suarez.
thereby necessitating a second call. When the case was called
Before she could finish the presentation of her evidence,
for the second time at around 9:00 a.m. Capt. Sarmiento was still respondent Manese filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice to
not around. Hence, Atty. Tomas Gorospe, in behalf of petitioner, her right to file another action for custody and support of minor
Rafael Carlos Suarez, contending that the issue as to who
orally moved for the dismissal of the case invoking the right to between the parties has the rightful and legal custody of the
speedy trial as the petitioner stands confined and that the minor child could be fully adjudicated in another action and not
in the present action for writ of habeas corpus.
Government failed to prosecute or adduce evidence due to the
non-appearance of a vital prosecution witness. The trial court issued a resolution granting the motion with
prejudice. Thereafter, respondent Manese filed another action
for custody of minor and support before the trial court against
The respondent Judge verbally granted the motion and ordered petitioner. The latter moved to dismiss the action on the ground
the immediate release of the accused. of bar by prior judgment rendered in the petition for writ of
habeas corpus dismissing the same with prejudice. The motion to
While the subsequent calendared cases set for that day was in dismiss by petitioner was denied by the trial court.
progress, and in less than an hour after pronouncement of the
Manese filed a motion for visitorial rights and a motion for
verbal order of dismissal, Capt. Lina Sarmiento arrived direct from
custody of the minor during the Christmas season. The trial court
Quezon City. Upon a satisfactory explanation, the respondent issued an order granting t Manese's two motions.
Judge issued his now assailed order setting aside his previous
Not satisfied with the orders of the trial court, petitioner filed with
verbal order of dismissal and re-scheduling Crim. Case No. 6201- respondent appellate court a petition for certiorari and
R for continuation of trial. prohibition with application for restraining order/preliminary
injunction. The Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing
the special civil action.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
G.R. No. 83251 January 23, 1991 However, the foregoing requisites should be subservient to the
most significant requirement that the former judgment must be a
valid one. The Court of Appeals was correct that the former
RENATO B. SUAREZ, petitioner, vs.
order issued by the trial court dismissing the habeas corpus case
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ZENAIDA BALTAZAR as Presiding Judge
is null and void for having been rendered in violation of the
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig, Metro Manila, and
constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by
ROSEMARIE MANESE, respondents.
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based. Further, the
FACTS: circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the case show that
the order of the trial court was issued whimsically and
capriciously and with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to was seen floating along Del Pan St. near the corner of Lavesares
nullity of the order. St., Binondo, Manila.
The motion to dismiss of Manese was filed during the trial and When untied and removed from its cover, the lifeless body of the
hearing stage of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The victim was seen clad only in a light colored duster without her
general rule governing dismissal of actions by the plaintiff after panties, with gaping wounds on the left side of the face, the left
the answer has been served — an action shall not be dismissed chin, left ear, lacerations on her genitalia, and with her head
at the request of the plaintiff after the service of the answer bashed in.
except by order of the court and upon such terms and
conditions as the court deems proper. Hence, the trial court has
On the basis of sworn statements of witnesses, Abundio
the judicial discretion in ruling on a motion to dismiss at the
Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey of no fixed address, and Henry
instance of the plaintiff, but this discretion should be exercised
Lagarto y Petilla, of 288 Area H. Parola Compound, Tondo,
within reasonable limits. In such case, the trial court has to
Manila were later charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide
decide whether the dismissal of the case should be allowed,
in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
and if so on what terms and conditions.
FACTS: Yes. Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our
system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political
On August 2, 1994, the cadaver of a young girl, later identified as beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries
Angel Alquiza wrapped in a sack and yellow table cloth tied within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of
with a nylon cord with both feet and left hand protruding from it their office, then law becomes meaningless. A government of
laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary
powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, in imposing the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua where the law
judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect clearly imposes the penalty of Death.
and enforce it without fear or favor," resist encroachments by
governments, political parties, or even the interference of their
G.R. No. L-27013 October 18, 1977
own personal beliefs.
Upon arraignment, said respondent entered a plea of guilty. In A judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employee to
view of said plea, the court rendered judgment convicting him pay an indemnity in the absence of any collusion between the
of the offense charged and sentencing him "to indemnify the defendant and the offended party, is conclusive upon the
heirs of the late Myrna Pajarito de San Luis the amount of P12, employer in an action for the enforcement of the latter's
000.00. subsidiary liability.
After the judgment had become final and executory, a Writ of The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon his
Execution was issued against Joselito Aizon for the indemnity of driver's conviction and upon proof of the latter's insolvency, in
P12, 000.00, but the same was returned unsatisfied because of the same way that acquittal wipes out not only the employee's
his insolvency. primary civil liability but also his employer's subsidiary liability for
such criminal negligence.
Whereupon, petitioner Lucia S. Pajarito, mother of the late Myrna
Pajarito de San Luis, filed with the court a motion for the issuance The decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive
of Subsidiary Writ of Execution and served a copy thereof to upon the employer, "not only with regard to (the latter's) civil
private respondent Felipe Aizon, employer of Joselito Aizon as liability but also with regard to its amount because the liability of
alleged in the Information. an employer cannot be separated but follows that of his
employee. That is why the law says that his liability is subsidiary
Felipe Aizon opposed the motion on the grounds, to wit: (Article 103, Revised Penal Code). To allow an employer to
dispute the civil liability fixed in the criminal case would be to
amend, nullify, or defeat a final judgment rendered by a In consequence of the compromise agreement, the trial court
competent court." dismissed the Complaint for Damages against Western Guaranty
Corporation.
The employer is in substance and in effect a party to the criminal
case, considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon him by The truck owners moved to dismiss the case. It argued that since
law. they are all indispensable parties under a common cause of
action, the dismissal of the case against defendant insurer must
result in the dismissal of the suit against all of them. The trial court
Considering that Felipe Aizon does not deny that he was the
denied the motion.
registered operator of the bus but only claims now that he sold
the bus to the father of the accused, it would serve no important
purpose to require petitioner to file a separate and independent Private respondent Holiday Hills Stock and Breeding Farm
action against the employer for the enforcement of the latter's Corporation assailed the denial order through a Petition for
subsidiary civil liability. Under the circumstances, it would not Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus With Restraining Order filed
only prolong the litigation but would require the heirs of the with respondent Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
deceased victim to incur unnecessary expenses. At any rate, the reversed the trial court.
proceeding for the enforcement of the subsidiary civil liability
may be considered as part of the proceeding for the execution
ISSUE:
of the judgment. A case in which an execution has been issued
is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the
execution are proceedings in the suit. There is no question that Whether the motion to dismiss should be granted on the ground
the court which rendered the judgment has a general that since the defendants are indispensable parties under a
supervisory control over its process of execution, and this power common cause of action, the dismissal of the case against the
carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and insurer by virtue of a compromise agreement must result in the
law which may be involved in the execution. dismissal of the suit against the truck owners.
The validity of the claim of Felipe Aizon that he is no longer the RULING:
owner and operator of the in fated bus as he sold it already to
Isaac Aizon, father of the accused Joselito Aizon, is a matter that No.
could be litigated and resolved in the same criminal case. In
support of his opposition to the motion of the complainant,
served upon him, for the purpose of the enforcement of his In sum, Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete states that where a complaint
subsidiary liability Felipe Aizon may adduce all the evidence alleges a common cause of action against defendants who are
necessary for that purpose. Indeed, the enforcement of the all indispensable parties to the case, its dismissal against any of
employer's subsidiary civil liability may be conveniently litigated them by virtue of a compromise agreement with the plaintiff
within the same proceeding because the execution of the necessarily results in the dismissal of the case against the other
judgment is a logical and integral part of the case itself. This defendants, including those in default. The ruling is rooted on the
would certainly facilitate the application of justice to the rival rationale that the court's power to act in a case involving a
claims of the contending parties. common cause of action against indispensable parties "is
integral and cannot be split such that it cannot relieve any of
them and at the same time render judgment against the rest.
The trial court is directed to hear and decide in the same
proceeding the subsidiary liability of the alleged owner and
operator of the passenger bus. For Lim Tanhu to apply to the case at bench, it must be
established that:
FACTS:
In the case at bench, it is clear that petitioner has different and
separate causes of action against the defendants in the case.
Virgilio Imson’s Toyota Corolla and a Hino diesel truck registered The allegations in the Complaint show that petitioner seeks to
under FNCB Finance Corporation and Holiday Hills Stock and recover from the truck driver for his wrong which caused injury to
Breeding Farm Corporation were involved in a vehicular collision. petitioner and his car. The cause of action against him is based
The collision seriously injured Virgilio Imson and totally wrecked his on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code. Quasi-
car. delict, too, is the basis of the cause of action against defendants
beneficial and registered owners. But in their case, it is Article
Imson filed a Complaint for Damages with the RTC Baguio City 2180 of the same Code which governs the rights of the parties.
against the registered owners of the truck and truck insurer,
Western Guaranty Corporation. However, with respect to defendant Western Guaranty
Corporation, petitioner's cause of action is based on contract.
The truck owners failed to answer and were declared in default. He seeks to recover from the insurer on the basis of the third
party liability clause of its insurance contract with the owners of
the truck.
However, Virgilio Imson and the truck insurer entered into a
compromise agreement which provided that Western Guaranty
Corporation admits that its total liability and shall pay P70, Lim Tanhu will not apply to the case at bench for there is no
000.00. showing that petitioner has a common cause of action against
the defendants in Civil Case No. 248-R.
Defendants in the civil case are not all indispensable parties. An
indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the
court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final
determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the
subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so
inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the
parties before the court which is effective, complete, or
equitable.