Facts:

The case involves Delta Motors Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DELTA") as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals, Hon. Roberto M. Lagman, and State Investment House, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "SIHI") as the respondents. The events leading to this case began when SIHI filed a sum of money action against DELTA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, specifically Branch VI, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 84-23019. On December 5, 1984, the RTC, presided by Judge Ernesto Tengco, rendered a decision declaring DELTA in default and ordering it to pay SIHI the amount of P20,061,898.97, along with 25% of the total obligation as attorney's fees and costs of suit. However, the decision could not be served on DELTA due to its dissolution prior to the service. During this time, DELTA had been taken over by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). On November 4, 1986, SIHI sought to serve the decision through publication, which the RTC allowed ...

Facts:

Background of the Case:
The case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by Delta Motors Corporation (DELTA) seeking the reversal of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147. The petition arose from a money claim filed by State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) against DELTA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 84-23019. DELTA was declared in default, and the RTC rendered a decision ordering DELTA to pay SIHI P20,061,898.97 plus attorney’s fees and costs.

Service of the Decision:
The decision could not be served on DELTA due to its dissolution. However, SIHI moved for service by publication, which was granted. The decision was published in the Thunderer, a weekly newspaper. Subsequently, SIHI moved for execution of the judgment, which the trial court granted. DELTA’s properties were levied upon and sold.

First Appeal to the Court of Appeals:
DELTA filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 23068, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons and that the decision was void. The Court of Appeals ruled that the decision, though validly rendered, did not become executory because it was not properly served on DELTA.

Subsequent Proceedings:
DELTA filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, but SIHI moved to dismiss it, arguing the appeal was filed out of time. The trial court dismissed the Notice of Appeal. DELTA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, seeking to annul the trial court’s orders. The Court of Appeals granted DELTA’s petition, setting aside the trial court’s orders and directing the elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals.

Omnibus Motion:
While SIHI’s petition for review in G.R. No. 110677 was pending before the Supreme Court, DELTA filed an Omnibus Motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 seeking to declare null and void the writ of execution and related proceedings. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating it could not act on the motion while the case was pending with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Scope of Appellate Review: The Court of Appeals could only consider errors raised in the petition, which were limited to the trial court’s orders dismissing the Notice of Appeal. The Omnibus Motion introduced new issues that were not part of the original petition, and allowing it would undermine judicial process.
2. Finality of Judgment: The decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 had long become final, and DELTA’s attempt to revive issues through the Omnibus Motion was procedurally impermissible.
3. Obiter Dictum: The deleted paragraph was not necessary to the resolution of the case, and thus, it was correctly identified as obiter dictum. Such remarks do not establish binding precedent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, finding no reversible error in the denial of DELTA’s Omnibus Motion and the deletion of the obiter dictum. Costs were imposed against DELTA.