Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The Court of Appeals can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the
evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent. [Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757,
November 23, 2011]
The Court of Appeals can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the
evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent. [Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757,
November 23, 2011]
The Court of Appeals can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the
evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent. [Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757,
November 23, 2011]
When the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is
instituted with the criminal action, whether by choice of private
complainant (i.e., no reservation is made or no prior filing of a
separate civil action) or as required by the law or rules, the case
will be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. The civil action cannot proceed independently of the
criminal case. This includes subsequent proceedings on the
criminal action such as an appeal. Consequently, if the state
pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial
court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed to
reserve the right to institute a separate civil action,the civil
liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense is
likewise appealed. The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is
impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the
acquittal of the accused. Private complainant cannot anymore
pursue a separate appeal from that of the state without violating
the doctrine of non-forum shopping. [see Garcia vs. Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. G.R. No. 172505, October 1, 2014]
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising
from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings
and regardless of the result of the latter.
Art 31 of the Civil Code refers to a civil action based, not on the
act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one
based on an obligation arising from other sources, such as law or
contract.
Art 31 of the Civil Code also refers to actions for damages based
on tort or quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Article 2176.
Consequently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict may lie
against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is found
guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover
damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such
eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. Moreover, the
civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the
criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
committed by the accused. [see Elcano vs Hill, G.R. No. L-
24803, May, 26, 1977]
Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly,
as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression, joint
tortfeasors. [see Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119398, July 2, 1999 in relation to Aberca vs Ver, G.R. No.
L-69866, April 15, 1988]
When the law has allowed a civil case related to a criminal case,
to be filed separately and to proceed independently even during
the pendency of the latter case, the intention is patent to make
the court's disposition of the criminal case of no effect
whatsoever on the separate civil case. This must be so because
the offenses specified in Article 33 are of such a nature, unlike
other offenses not mentioned, that they may be made the subject
of a separate civil action because of the distinct separability of
their respective juridical cause or basis of action. [ see Salta vs
De Veyra, G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982]
The term "physical injuries" used in article 33 of the Civil Code
includes homicide. [Dyogi vs Yatco, G.R. No. L-9623, January
22, 1957]. Consequently, even while a criminal case for
homicide is still pending, a separate civil action for damages (on
the ground of physical injuries resulting in death) under Art 33
may still be proceeded upon. Such civil action shall likewise not
be subordinate to the outcome of the criminal proceeding, such
that even if the defendant is acquitted, the civil action may still
prosper, since liability is not based on civil liability ex delicto but
based on a separate provision of law, i.e. Art 33 of the Civil Code.
1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code
need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are
not deemed included therein.
Related Reference(s)
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant
may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief. [Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court] Res judicata is not a
ground for demurrer to evidence, since grounds for res judicata present themselves
even before the presentation of evidence. It should be then that the defense of res
judicata should be invoked as a ground for dismissal. [Republic v. Tuvera, G.R.
No. 148246, January 16, 2007]
The court should then set the date for the reception of the defendant’s evidence in
chief, and not grant the relief demanded by the plaintiff. [Northwest Airlines, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120334, January 20, 1998]
He shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. [Sec. 1, Rule 33,
Rules of Court; Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, January 16, 2007] The
Court of Appeals should then render judgment based on the evidence submitted by
the petitioner. [Radiowealth Finance Corp. v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, July
6, 2000; Consolidated Bank and Trust Co. v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., G.R.
No. 143338, July 29, 2005]
Related Reference(s)
SendDownload
o An order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment;
o An interlocutory order;
o An order disallowing or dismissing appeal;
o An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession or compromise on the ground of
fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating
consent;
o An order of execution;
o A judgment or final order for or against one or more of
several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims,
cross-claims, and third-party complaints, while the
main case is pending, unless the court allows appeal
therefrom; and
o An order dismissing an action without prejudice. [Sec.
1, Rule 41, Rules of Court]
The remedy of the parties is to file a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65. [Sec. 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court;
Trust International Paper Corporation v. Pelaez, G.R. No.
164871, August 22, 2006]
Exceptions:
o In cases of lack of jurisdiction
o Where the lower court committed a plain error
o Where there are jurisprudential developments affecting
the issues
o When the issues raised present a matter of public
policy [Baluyot v. Poblete, G.R. No. 144435,
February 6, 2007; Pineda v. Heirs of Guevara,
G.R. No. 143188, February 14, 2007]
o Affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter;
o Affects the validity of the judgment appealed from;
o Affects the validity of the proceedings;
o Is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error
and properly argued in the brief;
o Is a plain and clerical one
o Failure to take the appeal within the reglementary
period;
o Lack of merit in the petition;
o Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful
fees or to make a deposit for costs;
o Failure to comply with the requirements regarding
proof of service and contents of and the documents
which should accompany the petition;
o Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of
the Supreme Court without justifiable cause;
o Error in choice or mode of appeal; and
o The fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme
Court
In case the appellant files the appellant’s brief late, the court has
the power to still allow the appeal if the lapse is for a reasonable
period. The court should also take into consideration the
following:
o Circumstances obtaining warrant the court’s liberality;
o Strong considerations of equity justify an exception to
the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice;
o No material injury has been suffered by the appellee by
the delay;
o No contention that the appellee’s cause was prejudiced
o No motion to dismiss was filed
Mistake of counsel
Mistake of counsel is not an adequate excuse for the court to
exercise indulgence except where:
o The reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives
the client of due process of law; or
o Application of the rule will result in outright deprivation
of the client’s liberty or property; or
o The interests of justice so require
Related Reference(s)
SendDownload
Interrogatories to Parties
By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over
property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer
has been served, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any
adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories. [Sec. 1,
Rule 25, Rules of Court] No party may, without leave of court, serve more than
one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party. [Sec. 4, Rule 25, Rules
of Court]
Within one day from receipt of the complaint, not only must summons be prepared
but an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories under Rule 25 and
request for admission under Rule 26 must also be issued. Nevertheless, the parties
may use depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules 27 and 29
within five days from the filing of the answer, at their discretion. [A.M. No. 03-1-
09-SC]
These shall be answered by:
Unlike written interrogatories under Rule 23, written interrogatories under Rule 25
are directed only to parties to a case.
Answer to interrogatories
The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing, and shall be signed and
sworn to by the person making them. [Sec. 2, Rule 25, Rules of Court]
Such party shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the
interrogatories within 15 days after service thereof. The court may extend or
shorten the time upon motion and for good cause shown. [Sec. 2, Rule 25, Rules of
Court]
Objections to interrogatories
Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the court within 10 days after
service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion. Answers shall be deferred until
the objections are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is possible. [Sec. 3,
Rule 25, Rules of Court]
They may relate to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of
the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party,
including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons
having knowledge of relevant facts. [Sec. 5, Rule 25, Rules of Court] The inquiry
can only extend to what is relevant and material to the issue. [Gerochi v. Dept. of
Energy, G.R. No. 159796, April 5, 2005]
Answers to the interrogatories may be used against any party who took part or had
notice of the interrogatory, in accordance with any of the following provisions:
any answer to an interrogatory may be used by any party for the purpose of
contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the party who answered the
interrogatory as a witness;
the answer to an interrogatory of party or of any one who at the time of answering
such interrogatory was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, partnership, or association which is a party may be used by an adverse
party for any purpose;
A party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending
appeal, unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent
a failure of justice. [Sec. 6, Rule 25, Rules of Court]
The complaint may be dismissed for non-suit if the plaintiff refuses to answer
interrogatories served upon him, unless he can justify such failure or refusal.
[Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007]
A trial court order denying the written interrogatory is interlocutory, and the proper
remedy is to appeal the adverse judgment, incorporating therein the grounds for
assailing the interlocutory order. However, when the order disallowing the written
interrogatory is patently erroneous, resort to certiorari is warranted. [Ong v. Mazo,
G.R. No. 145542, June 4, 2004]
Related Reference(s)
Ong vs Mazo
SendDownload
Not encouraged
Currently, the Supreme Court discourages the filing of a motion
to dismiss, and instead encourages filing an answer to the
complaint, alleging therein the grounds for a motion to dismiss.
This restraint in filing a motion to dismiss is contained in the
summons, which shall be issued within one day from receipt of
the complaint. [A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
o Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
o Litis pendentia (another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause)
o Res judicata (action is barred by prior judgment)
o Action is barred by the statute of limitations [Sec. 1,
Rule 9, Rules of Court]
After the hearing, the court may either: a) dismiss the action or
claim (i.e., approve the motion); b) deny the motion; or c) order
the amendment of the pleading. [Sec. 3, Rule 16, Rules of
Court] If the motion is denied, the movant shall file his answer
within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which
he was entitled at the time of serving his motion. However, this
period shall not be less than five days, in any event. It shall be
computed from the time he receives the notice of denial of the
motion. [Sec. 4, Rule 16, Rules of Court] He may raise the
same ground he raised in the denied motion to dismiss in the
answer. [Sps. Rasdas v. Sps. Villa, G.R. No. 157605,
December 13, 2005]
If the ground relied upon is dubitable, the court should not defer
the resolution of the motion. And in every case, the resolution
shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. [Sec. 3,
Rule 16, Rules of Court]
Hypothetical admissions
A motion to dismiss contains hypothetical admissions as to the
truth of the factual allegations in the complaint. [Peltan Dev’t
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 117029, March 19, 1997; Cuarto v. De
Luna, G.R. No. L-23279, January 31, 1968] However, these
only apply to those factual allegations sufficiently pleaded and the
material allegations in the complaint. It does not apply to mere
charges of fraud, allegations of legal conclusions or erroneous
statements of law, inferences from facts not stated, matters of
evidence, or irrelevant matters. [De Dios v. Bristol
Laboratories, G.R. No. L-25530, January 29, 1974]
Effect of dismissal
An order granting a motion to dismiss shall bar the refilling of the
same action or claim, except if based on the ff. grounds:
o Res judicata
o Prescription
o Paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished
claim or demand
o Unenforceability under the statute of frauds [Sec. 5,
Rule 16, Rules of Court]
Such dismissal of the complaint and granting of the motion to
dismiss is subject to appeal. [Sec. 5, Rule 16, Rules of Court]
Related Reference(s)
Pedro Paeste And Felix Carpio vs. Rustico Jaurigue 094 Phil 179
G.R. No. L-5711 | 1953-12-29
Republic Of The Phil. Vs. Melquiades G. Ilao, Et Al.114 Phil. 65
G.R. No. L-16667 | 1962-01-30
Alejandra Cuarto vs. Estelita De Luna, Et Al.
G.R. No. L-23279 | 1968-01-31
de Dios, et al. vs. Bristol Laboratories (Phil.), Inc., et al.
G.R. No. L-25530 | 1974-01-29
Peltan Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 117029 | 1997-03-19
Remington Industrial Sales Corporation vs The CA And British Steel (Asia),
Ltd.
G.R. No. 133657 | 2002-05-29
Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes Nabua, et al
G.R. No. 161309 | 2005-02-23
Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation, et al. vs. Mercedes Javier,
et al
G.R. No. 147738 | 2005-12-13
Sps. Enriqueta Rasdas and Tomas Rasdas, et al. vs. Jaime Estenor
G.R. No. 157605 | 2005-12-13
F. Pineda vs. Heirs of E. Guevara, et al
G.R. No. 143188 | 2007-02-14
Heirs of Valientes vs. Ramas
G.R. No. 157852 | 2010-12-15
SEVERINO S. CAPIRAL, Petitioner, vs. SIMEONA CAPIRAL ROBLES and
VICENTE CAPIRAL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 173628 | 2011-11-16
SendDownload
Labor Law; Labor Relations; Procedure and Jurisdiction; Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court has ruled that judicial review of decisions of the NLRC may
be sought via a petition for certiorari before the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court; and under Section 4 thereof, petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days from
notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the petition. Hence, in
cases where a petition for certiorari is filed after the expiration of the 10-day period
under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure but within the 60-day period under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, the CA can grant the petition and modify, nullify and
reverse a decision or resolution of the NLRC [St. Martin Funeral Home v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998]
Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the
province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. [Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v.
Villamater, G.R. No. 179169, March 3, 2010]
The Court of Appeals can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the
evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between
petitioner and respondent. [Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757, November 23,
2011]
Related Reference(s)
Pure Foods Corp. vs. Nat'l Labor Rel. Comm. Etal.
Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. and World Marine Panama, S.A. Vs. Catalino U.
Villamater, et al.
SendDownload
Jurisdiction
1. Original
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Original
Appellate
It must be noted that the NLRC does not have original jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in paragraph a of Article 217 and that if a
claim does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction, the
NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction thereon. [Pondoc v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 116347, October 3, 1996] The Supreme Court
has ruled that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary
period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to
do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, thus
depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final
judgment, much less to entertain the appeal. [Asuncion v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 109311, June 17, 1997]
The Commission also has rule making powers, it has been ruled
in one case where pursuant to the "no extension policy" of the
National Labor Relations Commission, aforesaid motion for
extension of time was denied in its resolution dated November
15, 1985 and the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out
of time. The Court held that, it is an elementary rule in
administrative law that administrative regulations and policies
enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they
are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled
to great respect. [Rizal Empire Insurance v. NLRC, G.R. No.
73140, May 29, 1987]
Effect of NLRC reversal of Labor Arbiter’s order of
reinstatement
Remedies
Certified cases
Related Reference(s)
SendDownload
Proper Verification
Court explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
L-50054. August 17, 1988]:
Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate
Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its resolutions
.... upon learning of the petition, the appellate court should have refrained from
ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily limited upon the filing of a
petition for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety of the issuance of
the above-mentioned resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and
practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to
wait for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the
case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court [underscoring
supplied]
[Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, June 26, 2006; see also Joy Mart
Consolidated Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88705, June 11, 1992, 209 SCRA
738]
SendDownload
Sandiganbayan, jurisdiction
a) Direct Bribery under Art. 210 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;
b) Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;
c) Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A as amended by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993;
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions
in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time
of the commission of the offense:
c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
d) Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher
rank;
e) Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of Provincial Director and
those holding the rank of Senior Superintendent or higher;
f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants; officials and the
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor ;
5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
IV. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed in relation to their office by the public officials and employees
mentioned above;
V. Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 &
14-A issued in 1986
VII. Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may
be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A
VIII. Other offenses, provided the accused belongs to Salary Grade 27 or higher:
e.) PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree which makes it punishable for any
official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for the private person to
give or offer to give any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion
including Christmas, when such gift, present or valuable thing is given by reason
of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or
the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future
from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his official
functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or
entertainment in honor of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.
f.) PD 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who voluntarily
gives information about any violation of Art.210, 211 or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019,
Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code and other
provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the
public officials concerned and other laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft,
corruption and other forms of official abuse and who willingly testifies against the
public official or employee subject to certain conditions.
It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the
Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.
[Ambil, Jr, vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, July 6, 2011]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a decision of the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by Petition for Review under Rule 42
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [Sec 2, Rule XI, Part III of the Revised Internal
Rules of the Sandiganbayan; Villanueva vs People, G.R. No. 188630, February 23,
2011]
Related Reference(s)
Creation
(9) Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court and
under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided
therein;
(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of
ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25,
1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein.
The losing party may file only one motion for reconsideration or
reinvestigation within 5 days from notice with the Office of the
Ombudsman or the proper Deputy Ombudsman as the case may
be, with leave of court for those cases where information has
already been filed in court. Note that the filing of the motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the
corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of
probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion. (Section
7, Rule II Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7 as
amended by Administrative Order No. 15 dated February
16, 2000)
1. To direct the parties to file, within ten (10) days from receipt
of the Order, their respective verified position papers. The
position papers shall contain only those charges, defenses and
other claims contained in the affidavits and pleadings filed by the
parties. Any additional relevant affidavits and/or documentary
evidence may be attached by the parties to their position papers.
On the basis of the position papers, affidavits and other pleadings
filed, the Hearing Officer may consider the case submitted for
resolution.
For officials that have been convicted and imposed with the
penalty of suspension or removal that have appealed and have
won such appeals, they shall be considered as having been
preventively suspended and shall be paid the salary and
emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension
or removal. (Section 7, Rule III Ombudsman Administrative
Order No. 7)
1.
Violation of traffic rules and regulations.
2. Violation of rental law.
3. Violation of municipal and city ordinances.
4. Violation of Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks
Law)
5. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law
for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
months or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00),
or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of civil liability arising therefrom.
Related Reference(s)
SendDownload
[I]t must be shown that the subject property has not been
(a) ?distrained, (b) taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant
to law,(c) seized under a writ of execution or preliminary
attachment, or (d) placed under custodia legis. [Merlita
Dapadap Vda. De Danao v. Judge Manuel Ginete, A.M. No.
MTJ–03–1474. January 21, 2003; Section 2, Rule 60 Rules
of Court]
Requirement of a Bond
This bond is for: (a) the return of the property to the adverse
party if such return be adjudged, and for (b) the payment to the
adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant
in the action. [Section 2, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the
court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin,
describing the personal property alleged to be wrongfully
detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property
into his custody. [Section 3, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
Upon receiving such order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof
on the adverse party, together with a copy of the application,
affidavit and bond, and must forthwith take the property, if it be
in the possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain it
in his custody. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in
a building or enclosure, the sheriff must demand its delivery, and
if it be not delivered, he must cause the building or enclosure to
be broken open and take the property into his possession. After
the sheriff has take possession of the property as herein
provided, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be
responsible for its delivery to the party entitled thereto upon
receiving his fees and necessary expenses for taking and keeping
the same. [Section 4, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
However, if the adverse party does not object, he may still seek
to have the property redelivered to him at any time before the
delivery of the property to the applicant.
If within five (5) days after the taking of the property by the
sheriff, the adverse party does not object to the sufficiency of the
bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon; or if the adverse party
so objects and the court affirms its approval of the applicant's
bond or approves a new bond, or if the adverse party requires the
return of the property but his bond is objected to and found
insufficient and he does not forthwith file an approved bond, the
property shall be delivered to the applicant. If for any reason the
property is not delivered to the applicant, the sheriff must return
it to the adverse party. [Section 6, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
And, ten (10) days after the taking of the property, the sheriff
must file the order, with his proceedings indorsed thereon, with
the court. [Section 8, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages, for the taking or
keeping of such property, to any such third-party claimant if such
bond shall be filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such
claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the
property, or prevent the applicant from claiming damages against
a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious
claim, in the same or a separate action.
Final Judgment
After trial of the issues the court shall determine who has the
right of possession to and the value of the property and shall
render judgment in the alternative for the delivery thereof to the
party entitled to the same, or for its value in case delivery cannot
be made, and also for such damages as either party may prove,
with costs. [Section 9, Rule 60, Rules of Court]
Related Reference(s)