Case Digest (G.R. No. 155524)
Facts:
Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (formerly Philippine Amanah Bank) v. Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc., G.R. No. 155524, August 12, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIB) was designated the official depository of funds for Filipino pilgrims under a Memorandum of Agreement between the Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA)/Bureau of Pilgrimage and Endowment (BPE) and respondent Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc. Sometime in 1988 the OMA/BPE contracted Celebrity to charter flights and secure accommodations for the Hajj; the OMA delivered pilgrims’ names and AIIB issued Manager’s Check No. 001766 for P14,742,187 payable to Celebrity to cover airfare, accommodations and related fees. After learning that some pilgrims had paid Celebrity directly, OMA directed AIIB to stop payment pending verification; AIIB dishonored the manager’s check.
Celebrity sued AIIB and OMA/BPE officers in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati (Civil Case No. 90-2270) on August 14, 1990 for P5,969,428.88 plus damages. On June 14, 1994 the trial court awarded Celebrity P211,459.52. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 46269; AIIB’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief, and on March 31, 1999 the CA modified the RTC decision and ordered AIIB to pay P14,742,187 with legal interest. That CA decision became final (entry of judgment January 4, 2000). Execution issued April 4, 2001; garnishment notices were served, but AIIB did not respond and collection efforts stalled.
Through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), AIIB moved in the RTC (Sept. 5, 2001; supplemental Oct. 16, 2001) to quash the writ of execution and stop its implementation, alleging (inter alia) deprivation of its day in court due to retained counsel’s negligence, ambiguity in the CA decision as to interest, that the CA awarded an amount greater than prayed for (and without requisite docket fees), and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied those motions (Nov. 5, 2001) and denied reconsideration (Mar. 1, 2002).
AIIB filed a Rule 65 certiorari/prohibition petition with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 70937) challenging the RTC orders and the writ of execution. On June 25, 2002 the CA Fourth Division dismissed the petition because the copy of the writ of execution annexed to AIIB’s petition was a mere photocopy and not a certified true or ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing AIIB’s petition for certiorari and prohibition for failing to append a certified true or duplicate original copy of the writ of execution (Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)