Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
ISSUES:
I. The core issue in G.R. No. 132592 is whether
execution of judgment pending appeal was justified.
NO
HELD: Petitions are denied for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 132592:
As held in Echaus vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA
381, 386 (1991), execution pending appeal is allowed
when superior circumstances demanding urgency
outweigh the damages that may result from the
issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an
instrument of solicitude and justice, the writ may well
become a tool of oppression and inequity.
In this case, considering the reasons cited by
petitioner, we are of the view that there is no superior
or urgent circumstance that outweighs the
damage which respondent would suffer if he
were ordered to vacate the house. We note that
petitioner did not refute respondents allegations that
she did not intend to use said house, and that she has
two (2) other houses in the US where she is a
permanent resident, while he had none at all. Merely
putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to
justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To
do so would make execution routinary, the rule rather
than the exception.
Similarly, we are not persuaded that the
P100,000 advance payment to petitioners counsel was
properly granted. We see no justification to pre-empt
the judgment by the Court of Appeals concerning said
amount of P100,000 at the time that the trial courts
judgment was already on appeal.
Fajardo vs. Quitalig
A.M. No. P-02-1535
March 28, 2003
Return of Writ of Execution
2|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
is
carried
out
without
3|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
4|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
5|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
6|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
7|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
8|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
9|REMEDIAL
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
10 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
11 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
12 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
13 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
PROPERTIES
EXEMPT
FROM
EXECUTION;
exemption pertains only to natural persons and
not to juridical entities
FACTS:
On February 9, 1995, respondents, who were employed
as security guards by petitioner, and assigned to
Fortune Tobacco, Inc. filed with the Labor Arbiter a
complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims
against petitioner and Fortune Tobacco. L.A. rendered a
Decision, declaring that all the respondents except
Antonio Cabangon Chua are jointly and severally liable
to pay complainants P1,077,124.29 for underpayment,
overtime pay, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave
pay, 13th month pay, illegal deduction and refund of
firearms bond, and ten 10% percent of all sums owing
to complainants is hereby awarded as attorneys fees.
Fortune Tobacco interposed an appeal to the NLRC.
Petitioner did not appeal. NLRC affirmed with
modification the assailed Arbiters Decision in the
sense that the complaint against Fortune Tobacco was
dismissed. This Decision became final and executory.
Thus, the award specified in the Decision of the Arbiter
became the sole liability of petitioner. The records were
then remanded to the Arbiter for execution.
Upon respondents motion, the Arbiter issued a writ of
execution. Eventually, the sheriff served a writ of
garnishment upon the Chief Accountant of Foremost
Farms, Inc., a corporation with whom petitioner has an
existing services agreement. Thus, petitioners
receivables with Foremost were garnished.
Petitioner filed with the NLRC a "Motion to Quash/Recall
Writ of Execution and Garnishment" which was
opposed by respondents. Arbiter denied the motion
and directed the sheriff to release the garnished sum of
money to respondents pro rata. The MR was likewise
denied, hence, it interposed an appeal to the NLRC.
NLRC dismissed the appeal for petitioners failure to
post a bond within the reglementary period. Its MR was
likewise denied. Petitioner then filed with the CA a
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
14 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
G.R. No. 157616
July 22, 2005
Effect of Judgments
Facts:
The spouses Digos, secured a loan from the
International Exchange Bank to finance their project for
the construction of townhouses. To secure the payment
of the loan, the spouses Digos executed a Real Estate
Mortgage (REM) over the said property. The
construction was delayed resulting to the failure of Sps.
Digos to pay their loan which subsequently caused the
extrajudicial foreclosure of their REM. Consequently,
the property was sold at public auction, with the bank
as the highest bidder at P4,500,000.00, which
appeared to be the account of the spouses Digos at the
time. The Certificate of Sale executed by the sheriff
was, thereafter, registered at the Office of the Register
of Deeds.
When the period to redeem the property was
about to expire, sps. Digos ask for an extension from
the bank to redeem property, to which the bank after
previous refusal agreed to one month extension.
However, instead of repurchasing said property, the
spouses filed a complaint for the nullification of the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
and sale at public auction and/or redemption of the
property against the bank. The latter filed a motion to
dismiss which was granted by the trial court.
Thereafter the bank sold the questioned property
to petitioners. Subsequently, another complaint was
filed by Sps. Digos against the bank, Perez and Ragua,
for the cancellation and annulment of the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by
them in favor of the bank, the sale at public auction as
well as the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff,
and the Torrens title issued to them.
The Digos reiterated their allegations in their first
complaint that they were not notified of the sale at
public auction, and that the banks P4,500,000.00 bid
for the property was unconscionably low compared to
the prevailing market price of P25,000,000.00. They
also admitted their failure to pay their amortization on
their loans. However, they alleged this time that the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
and the sale at public auction were illegal because the
bank charged much more than the amount due on
their loan account, to wit: interest of 26% per annum
on the loan account covering January 2, 1998, whereas
under the promissory note executed in favor of the
15 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
16 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
17 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
18 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
19 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
20 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
21 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
22 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
July 8, 2013
23 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
24 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
25 | R E M E D I A L
LAW
REVIEW
1:
CIVIL
PROCEDURE