Case Digest (G.R. No. L-962)
Facts:
The case involves Felix Azotes as the petitioner and Manuel Blanco and Julian Figura as the respondents. The events leading to this case began in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where a judgment was rendered in civil case No. 11396 in favor of Julian Figura against Felix Azotes concerning the title and possession of a parcel of land. This judgment became final and executory, leading to the execution of the decision in 1940, which resulted in the delivery of the property to Figura. Following the liberation of the Philippines after World War II, the records of the case were reconstituted, and a new writ of execution was issued on June 3, 1946. However, this writ was set aside upon Azotes' motion, arguing that the judgment had already been executed prior to the war. On August 1, 1946, Figura filed a motion for contempt against Azotes, claiming that Azotes had cut bamboo from the land delivered to him and was still depriving Figura of possession. Azotes was summoned to...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-962)
Facts:
Judgment and Execution:
In the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, a judgment was rendered in civil case No. 11396, where respondent Julian Figura sued petitioner Felix Azotes over the title and possession of a parcel of land. The judgment against Azotes became final and executory, and the property was delivered to Figura in 1940.Reconstitution of Records:
After liberation, the case record was reconstituted, and a new writ of execution was issued on June 3, 1946. However, this writ was set aside upon Azotes' motion, arguing that the judgment had already been executed before the war.Motion for Contempt:
On August 1, 1946, Figura filed a motion for contempt against Azotes, alleging that Azotes had cut bamboo from the land delivered to Figura and continued to deprive him of possession. Azotes was summoned to appear on September 13, 1946, but failed to do so, leading to his arrest for contempt.Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari:
Azotes filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari, challenging the reconstitution of the record and the court's jurisdiction to punish him for contempt over acts occurring more than five years after the execution of the judgment.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Presumption of Attorney Authority:
An attorney who appears in court on behalf of a litigant is presumed to have authority to act unless proven otherwise. Azotes failed to provide evidence that Evidente & Evidente no longer represented him.No Time Limit for Contempt:
Rule 64, Section 3(h) does not impose a time limit for punishing contemptuous acts of reentry into property delivered by court order. The five-year limitation under Rule 39, Section 6 applies only to motions for execution, not to contempt proceedings.Admission of Judgment Execution:
Azotes' admission that the judgment had been executed before the war undermined his challenge to the reconstituted record, as it confirmed the existence and validity of the judgment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Azotes' petition, upholding the validity of the reconstituted record and the trial court's jurisdiction to punish him for contempt. Costs were imposed against Azotes.