Case Digest (G.R. No. 152537)
Facts:
Asia Traders Insurance Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152537, February 16, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.In July 1994, Cabever Realty Corporation filed an ejectment action against Eduardo Cua before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MTC). On December 6, 1994 the MTC ordered Cua to vacate and to pay back rentals. Cua appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC) and, as a condition of appeal, posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of P62,600. The bond was undertaken by Asia Traders Insurance Corporation (petitioner).
On June 26, 1995 the RTC affirmed the MTC decision. Cabever moved on August 4, 1995 to withdraw the supersedeas bond; the RTC granted the motion on August 9, 1995 and ordered the release of the bond within three days or else issuance of a writ of execution. When Cua did not comply, Cabever moved for issuance of a writ of execution on September 8, 1995 and the RTC issued a writ against Asia Traders.
Asia Traders promptly moved for reconsideration, alleging the bond was fake and that it never issued the bond. The RTC denied Asia Traders' motion for reconsideration and likewise denied a second motion for reconsideration, which led to notice of levy and sale of Asia Traders' property.
On January 10, 1996 Asia Traders filed a petition for certiorari with application for preliminary injunction and restraining order in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 39433), impleading as respondents the presiding RTC judge and the branch sheriff but not Cabever. In a January 20, 1999 decision the Court of Appeals denied the petition on two grounds: (a) failure to implead Cabever as a respondent (a formal defect); and (b) failure to substantiate materially the allegations that the bond was spurious (a substantive defect). Asia Traders moved for reconsideration; the Court of Appeals denied the motion on February 21, 2002.
Asia Traders then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 152537). Cabever filed a comment arguing dismissal because Asia Traders had failed to implead the indispensable adverse party; Asia Traders initially replied that Cabever was not indispensable but later filed (March 28, 2003) a Motion to Admit Amended Petition to implead Cabever. Cabever moved (May 22, 2003) to be dropped as respondent; Asia Traders opposed. The Su...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court dismiss the Rule 45 petition for formal defects (failure to implead the adverse party and wrongly naming the Court of Appeals as respondent)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the petition for certiorari on the ground that its decision lacked a clear and distinct statement of facts and law?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion (and deny due process) by issuing writ of execution against Asia Traders based on a supposedly spurious ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)