SIHI v. Delta

8/13/2019 SIHI v. Delta

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 144444 April 3, 2003

STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., petitioner,vs.DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION, respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.

le!entar" is the rule that res judicata cannot arise fro! a #ud$!ent that has notattained finalit". The finalit" of the decision is, in fact, the first re%uire!ent for theapplication of this doctrine. &e also hold that 'ithout a final #ud$!ent, a trial court(sorder of e)ecution has no le$ to stand on. On the other hand, an order authori*in$e)ecution pendin$ appeal is li+e'ise i!proper because it 'as issued after the appealhas been perfected.

The Case

efore us is a Petition for Revie' - under Rule / of the Rules of 0ourt, see+in$ to setaside the Nove!ber -1, -222 Decision 3 of the 0ourt of 4ppeals 5 6047 in 0489R SPNo. :;25. The dispositive part of the Decision reads thusOR , the petition for certiorari is 9R4NT D. The orders ofrespondent RT0, ranch 1 of Manila dated Ma" 3;, -22: and 4u$ust 5,-22: are hereb" 4NN?@@ D. 0osts a$ainst private respondent.=

On the other hand, the annulled Ma" 3;, -22: Order of the Re$ional Trial 0ourt6RT07 / reads as follo'sirst 0ase.=

On Aanuar" 33, -22-, the 04 rendered a Decision, declarin$ that the su!!ons hadbeen properl" served upon Delta throu$h one vel Torres, the 0orporation(s vicepresident for finance, but that the RT0 Aud$!ent had not attained finalit". Thedispositive portion of the 04 Decision readsOR , 'hile the assailed decision 'as validl" rendered b" theCRT0 , nonetheless it has not attained finalit" pendin$ service of a cop"thereof on ) ) ) D @T4, 'hich !a" appeal therefro! 'ithin there$le!entar" period.= -G

Notabl", the 04 Decision 'as silent on the assailed March --, -2:; RT0 Order$rantin$ the e)ecution. Delta then appealed to this 0ourt. Ho'ever, its Petition,doc+eted as 9R No. -GG511, 'as dis!issed on 4u$ust - , -22-, because of Delta(sfailure to present proof that a cop" of the Petition 'as served on the RT0, as re%uired

b" Revised Supre!e 0ourt 0ircular No. -8::, 'hich had ta+en effect on Aul" -, -22-.

On Nove!ber -3, -22-, Delta filed its Notice of 4ppeal 'ith the RT0, 'hich,ho'ever, dis!issed it on Aune 5, -223, upon SITI(s !otion. Thereafter, Delta filed aPetition for 0ertiorari in 0489R SP No. 32- ; 6the =Second 0ase=7, assailin$ theRT0 Order dis!issin$ the Notice of 4ppeal. The 04 $ranted the Petition in its Aune-;, -225 DecisionOR , the %uestioned order of Cthe RT0 dated Aune 5, -223,dis!issin$ the notice of appeal dated Nove!ber 1, -22-B and the orderdated Septe!ber - , -223 of the sa!e court den"in$ the !otion forreconsideration filed b" CDelta , throu$h counsel, are hereb" S T 4SID Band respondent court [is] hereby ordered to ELEVATE the records of thecase to the Court of Appeals, on appeal .=--

SITI elevated the 04 rulin$ to this 0ourt. &hile the appeal 'as pendin$, Delta filed'ith the 04 an O!nibus Motion as+in$ the latter to ta+e the follo'in$ stepsinal Deed of Sale and issue a ne' titlecoverin$ the sa!e propert", in the na!e of State Invest!ent CTrust , Inc.B

=5. Directin$ the incu!bent Sheriff of this branch, duardo . 0entenoandEor his successor in office, to sell at public auction Delta Motors0orporation(s shares of stoc+s in 0anluban$ 9olf and 0ountr" 0lub coveredb" 0ertificate Nu!bers G; and G;/, and the levied real properties underT0T Nos. 32/1;, 32/15, 32/1 , 32-;-, 32/1/, 32/11 and 53;: issued b"the Re$ister of Deeds of Da$upan 0it"B

= . Directin$ the incu!bent sheriff, andEor his successor in office, to continue'ith the e)ecution proceedin$s co!!enced b" the late sheriff Orlando M.

4lcantara in the i!ple!entation of the 4lias &rit of )ecution, and toe)ecute all docu!ents such as, but not li!ited to, t he Sheriff(s 0ertificate ofSale or >inal Deed of Sale, and to perfor! all acts necessar" to i!ple!ent

said 'rit and to transfer in the na!e of State Invest!ent Trust, Inc. title tothe properties of Delta Motors 0orporation sub#ect of notices of lev".

=Other reliefs #ust and e%uitable are li+e'ise pra"ed for.= -

In opposin$ the Motion, Delta pointed out that the case had not attained finalit"because of its pendin$ appeal. The RT0 nevertheless rendered the Ma" 3;, -22:Order $rantin$ SITI(s O!nibus Motion. Thereafter, Delta challen$ed that Order oncertiorari before the 04, 'hich then annulled it in the present assailed Decision.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

3


3/6

Rulin$ on the Second 0ase, the 04 refused to !a+e an" cate$orical decision on thevalidit" of the March --, -2:; RT0 Order on the $round that it had no #urisdiction overthe !atter. It noted that the onl" issue raised in the Second 0ase 'as the correctnessof the Aune 5, -223 RT0 Order dis!issin$ respondent(s appeal of the Dece!ber /,-2: RT0 Decision. In 9R No. --G11;, this 0ourt affir!ed the 04. Hence, the 04 b"its refusal to rule on the March --, -2:; RT0 Order, did not pass upon the substantialri$hts of the parties, contrar" to petitioner(s contention.

&hile it did not nullif" the March --, -2:; RT0 Order in its Decision in the >irst 0ase,

the 04 held, ho'ever, that the RT0 #ud$!ent, 'hich had not been validl" served onDelta, 'as not "et final and e)ecutor". The 04 ruled t hat the RT0 had acted 'ithout

#urisdiction 'hen the latter issued its March --, -2:; Order $rantin$ SITI(s Motion fora &rit of )ecution. The appellate court noted that the RT0(s assailed Decision 'asnot "et final and e)ecutor" at the ti!e, because it ordered the records of the case tobe elevated to it for revie' in its Aune -;, -225 Decision.

The 04 also found that the RT0 had acted 'ithout #urisdiction 'hen it relied on 9RNo. -3-G;/ to $rant petitioner(s March -1, -22: O!nibus Motion. The appellate courtheld that the lo'er court(s action effectivel" allo'ed e)ecution of the Dece!ber /,-2: Decision even 'hen it had not "et beco!e final and e)ecutor".

Hence, this appeal. -/

ssues

Petitioner sub!its the follo'in$ issues for our considerationurther!ore, the Order of e)ecution 'as !ade 'ithout an" state!ent of the specialreason for its issuance. The rule allo'in$ e)ecution pendin$ appeal is strictl"construed a$ainst the !ovant, because courts loo+ 'ith disfavor upon an" atte!pt toe)ecute a #ud$!ent that has not ac%uired a f inal character. 3/ =4n e)ecution pendin$appeal is an e)traordinar" re!ed", bein$ !ore of the e)ception rather than the rule. Itis allo'ed onl" upon sho'in$ of ($ood reasons( b" the !ovant.= 31 In the present case,

no reason has been sho'n for the issuance of the Order directin$ e)ecution pendin$appeal.

Third ssue(Laches

Petitioner asserts that respondent is $uilt" of laches, because it failed to file a ti!el"Notice of 4ppeal. Neither did it do an"thin$ to cause the trans!ittal of the records ofthe case to the 04.

The issue re$ardin$ the Notice of 4ppeal 'as alread" the sub#ect of the 04 Decisionin 0489R SP No. 32- ;, 'hich passed upon and directl" addressed it. Moreover, the!atter 'as laid to rest b" this 0ourt in 9R No. --G1;;. &e !ust abide b" the rulin$therein affir!in$ the ti!eliness of respondent(s Notice of 4ppeal.

Laches !eans the failure or ne$lect, for an unreasonable and une)plained len$th ofti!e, to do that 'hich b" e)ercisin$ due dili$ence could or should have been doneearlier. 3; It is ne$li$ence or o!ission to assert a ri$ht 'ithin a reasonable ti!e,'arrantin$ a presu!ption that the part" entitled to assert it either has abandoned it ordeclined to assert it. 3:

&e note that respondent pursued its appeal b" filin$ a Notice of 4ppeal on Nove!ber-3, -22-. Since the RT0 dis!issed it, respondent had to battle for its ri$ht to appealto the 04 and the Supre!e 0ourt. This battle 'ent on until the latter part of -22 . 32

/


6/6

Thereafter, it 'as the dut" of the RT0 cler+ of court to trans!it the records to theappellate court. 5G The 04, in 0489R SP No. 32- ;, in fact ordered the RT0 toelevate those records. 0onse%uentl", the RT0 'as dut"8bound to obe" this !andate'ithin ten 6-G7 da"s fro! its receipt of the Notice of the entr" of final #ud$!enteffected on October -;, -22 . The branch cler+ of court, not respondent, 'aspri!aril" responsible for seein$ to it that the records of appealed cases 'ere properl"sent to the appellate court 'ithout dela". 5-

Respondent 'as 'ell 'ithin reason to e)pect and 'ait for the RT0 to elevate the

records 'ithout further proddin$. In opposin$ petitioner(s O!nibus Motion,respondent indeed brou$ht up the !atter of the pendin$ appeal. >inall", upon noticin$that the elevation of the records 'as not forthco!in$, it filed a Motion therefor in

4u$ust -22:. 53 These acts are inco!patible 'ith the presu!ption that it hadabandoned its appeal. Hence, it cannot be found $uilt" of laches.

&H R >OR , the Petition is hereb" D NI D and the assailed Decision 4>>IRM D.0osts a$ainst petitioner.

SO ORD R D.

uno, -Chair#an., 'ando%al/0utierre1, Corona, and Carpio/$orales, ""&, concur.

!oo"#o"$%- Rollo, pp. 285G.3 d ., pp. 5/8/G.5 Seventh Division. Penned b" Austice Ma. 4licia 4ustria8Martine* 6Divisionchair!an and no' a #ustice of this 0ourt7 and concurred in b" AusticesSalvador A. Valde* Ar. and Renato 0. Dacudao 6!e!bers7. 4ssailed Decision, p. -1B rollo, p. /G.

/ Rendered b" Presidin$ Aud$e @olita 0. Du!lao.1 The corporate na!e 'as later chan$ed to State Invest!ent Trust, Inc.; Order dated Ma" 3;, -22:B 04 rollo, pp. -18-;.: >or!erl" +no'n as State Invest!ent House, Inc.2 Petition for Revie' in the >irst 0ase, p. -1B rollo, p. ;3.-G 04 Decision in the >irst 0ase, p. ;B rollo, p. :5.-- 04 Decision in the Second 0ase, p. :B rollo, p. -/:. !phasis provided.-3 Rollo, p. -1G. Ori$inal in upper case.-5 04 Resolution in the Second 0ase, p. /B rollo, p. -12.- 04 rollo, pp. 3583 .-/ This case 'as dee!ed sub!itted for resolution on Ma" -;, 3GG-, uponreceipt b" this 0ourt of respondent(s Me!orandu! si$ned b" 4tt". Rodolfodela 0ru*. Petitioner(s Me!orandu!, si$ned b" 4tt"s. Pablito 4. Pere* andAin+" Rose @. 9o of uFa$ Japunan Mi$allos K Pere*, 'as received on

4pril 5G, 3GG-.-1 The date should be March --, -2:;, because the assailed Decision doesnot !ention an" March -;, -2:; Order.-; Petitioner(s Me!orandu!, pp. -G8--B rollo, pp. 5G:85G2. Ori$inal in uppercase.

-: In 0489R SP No. 32- ; and 0489R SP No. 35G1:.-2 In 9R No. -3-G;/.3G 04 Decision in 0489R SP No. :;25, pp. -58- B rollo, pp. ;8 :.3- d ., pp. -- K /.33 5-: S0R4 /-1, Nove!ber -2, -222.35 d ., pp. /518/52, per Puno, A.3 $ara2i $arantao 0eneral 3ospital, nc& %& Court of Appeals , 5 2 S0R453-, Aanuar" -1, 3GG-.3/ $aceda "r& %& +4 , 5-5 S0R4 355, 4u$ust 31, -222B lanters roducts

nc& %& Court of Appeals, 5-; S0R4 -2/, October 33, -222.31 $aceda "r& %& +4 , supra , per Pan$aniban, A.3; Republic %& Court of Appeals , 5G- S0R4 511, Aanuar" 3-, -222B +e Vera%& Court of Appeals , 5G/ S0R4 13 , 4pril - , -222B 'u#bad %& Court of

Appeals , 5G: S0R4 /;/, Aune 3-, -222.3: )chagabia %& Court of Appeals , 5G S0R4 /:;, March --, -222B Eduarte%& Court of Appeals , 5-- S0R4 -:, Aul" 33, -222B Reyes %& Court of

Appeals , 5-/ S0R4 131, Septe!ber 5G, -222.32 In a resolution dated Septe!ber 3-, -22 , the Supre!e 0ourt deniedSITI(s !otion for reconsideration.5G L-G of Rule - of the Rules of 0ourt.5- Tan %& Coliflores , 3 G S0R4 5G5, Aanuar" 3G, -22/.53 See 04 rollo, pp. 3-/ and 33G

1

Documents

SIHI v. Delta