Case Digest (G.R. No. L-884)
Facts:
Contreras and Gingco v. Felix and The China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. L-884, June 30, 1947, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Patricio Contreras and Jerusalem Gingco sued The China Banking Corporation, Inc., and spouses Juan V. Molina and Teodora Arenas in the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul a mortgage and to recover damages. The trial court (Hon. Jose O. Vera presiding) held the mortgage valid as to the bank, absolved the bank from damages, and condemned the Molinas to pay various sums to Gingco; the plaintiffs appealed only as to particular portions adverse to them.On appeal the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision (see Contreras and Gingco v. China Banking Corporation, 76 Phil. 709) and ordered “all the defendants to pay Jerusalem Gingco the amount of P6,951.31,” plus certain rents and costs. That mandate was remitted for execution to the Court of First Instance. During execution the sheriff initially attempted to collect one‑half of the judgment from the bank (following an instruction allegedly from plaintiffs’ counsel), but the bank objected and Judge Alfonso Felix ordered that the bank’s share be only one‑third; the bank paid that one‑third and the plaintiffs’ counsel receipted it.
Because the Molinas were insolvent and the bank had paid only one‑third, the plaintiffs sought an alias execution against the bank for the unpaid balance; the motion for an alias execution was denied. Petitioners then filed the present special proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to execute the full amount of the Supreme Court judgment against the bank. Before this petition was docketed petitioners had litigated a “Motion for Clarification” (a motion for reconsideration) in the Supreme Court, which the Court denied as unnecessary because the judgment had become final.
Petitioners argued the bank was tortiously liable and therefore solidarily liable under Art. 1902 of the Civil Code; respondents and the Court below treated the Supreme Court’s judgment as creating only joint (pro rata) liability under ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is mandamus an available and proper remedy to compel the trial court to execute a final Supreme Court judgment against the China Banking Corporation for the full amount claimed by petitioners?
- Did the Supreme Court’s final judgment render the China Banking Corporation solidarily liable (joint and several) for the full amount adjudged, or merely joint...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)