Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55808)
Facts:
The case involves Leandro Alazas as the petitioner and Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Gumercindo Jimenez, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cebu, and Rosario Mercader as the respondents. The events leading to this case began on July 28, 1976, when Rosario Mercader filed a complaint against Leandro Alazas for the recovery of property and damages through replevin. Mercader claimed ownership of personal properties kept in her office at the Magellan Hotel in Cebu City, which Alazas, along with eight hired men, allegedly ransacked and removed, including a steel filing cabinet and various other items valued at P97,700.00. The court granted a writ of replevin on August 4, 1976, leading to the return of some properties to Mercader.
On August 24, 1976, Alazas filed an answer with a counterclaim, asserting his ownership of the Sultan Express Tours and the properties in question. However, the counterclaim was dismissed due to ongoing litigation regarding...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55808)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- On July 28, 1976, Rosario Mercader filed a complaint against Leandro Alazas for the recovery of property and damages with replevin. Mercader claimed ownership of personal properties worth P97,700.00, which were allegedly taken by Alazas from her office at the Sultan Express Tours.
Writ of Replevin
- On August 4, 1976, the court granted Mercader's prayer for a writ of replevin, leading to the return of some properties to her.
Alazas' Defense
- Alazas filed an answer on August 24, 1976, asserting that he owned the Sultan Express Tours and the disputed properties, including the steel filing cabinet. He admitted taking the cabinet but denied the claimed value of its contents.
Pre-Trial Agreement
- During pre-trial, the parties agreed to limit the issues to the ownership of the personal properties listed in Mercader's amended complaint.
Trial Court Decision
- On December 27, 1979, the trial court ruled in favor of Mercader, ordering Alazas to return specific properties or their monetary equivalents, pay P1,000.00 for the replevin bond, and P5,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
Appeal and Execution Pending Appeal
- Alazas filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 1980, and deposited a cash appeal bond. On February 4, 1980, Mercader filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the court granted on February 7, 1980, without proper notice to Alazas.
Court of Appeals Intervention
- Alazas challenged the execution pending appeal before the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court's order on August 6, 1980, due to lack of notice and due process.
Resubmission of Motion for Execution
- On October 7, 1980, Mercader resubmitted her motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court granted the motion on November 11, 1980, citing "special and good reasons."
Writs of Execution and Seizure of Properties
- Writs of execution were issued on November 14, 1980, and December 19, 1980. Alazas' motor vehicles were seized, and a public auction was scheduled for January 5, 1981.
Supreme Court Intervention
- The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on January 7, 1981, halting the execution and auction. A preliminary mandatory injunction was later issued, ordering the return of the seized properties to Alazas.
Issue:
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting execution pending appeal without proper notice and due process.
- Whether the trial court's delay in approving Alazas' record on appeal was improper and showed bias.
- Whether the trial court's finding that Alazas' appeal was frivolous and dilatory was justified.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's order of execution pending appeal and the writs of execution dated November 14, 1980, and December 19, 1980. The Court directed the trial court to give due course to Alazas' appeal and elevate the records to the Intermediate Appellate Court. The temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were made permanent. The respondent judge was censured for improper judicial conduct.
Ratio:
- Abuse of Discretion in Granting Execution Pending Appeal: The trial court granted execution pending appeal without proper notice to Alazas, violating due process. The Court of Appeals had previously set aside a similar order for the same reason.
- Improper Delay in Approving Record on Appeal: The trial court's inaction on Alazas' record on appeal for nine months, despite no objections from Mercader, showed bias and partiality. This delay enabled the court to grant execution pending appeal improperly.
- No Basis for Frivolous Appeal: The trial court's finding that Alazas' appeal was frivolous and dilatory lacked evidentiary support. Most of the properties were already in Mercader's possession due to the writ of replevin.
- Judicial Conduct: The trial judge's actions, including the premature issuance of writs of execution and failure to address Alazas' due process concerns, demonstrated improper judicial conduct. Judges must act impartially and avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process and impartiality in judicial proceedings. The trial court's actions, including the improper grant of execution pending appeal and delay in approving the record on appeal, constituted grave abuse of discretion and improper judicial conduct. The Court's decision ensured that Alazas' appeal would proceed fairly and without undue prejudice.