Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2744)
Facts:
In Civil Case No. 768 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Gaudencio D. Demaisip and Modesta P. Demaisip demanded, among others, the delivery to them of 180 cavanes of palay or payment of its value of P1,800 from defendants Manuel Duenas, Jovita V. Duenas, Cesar Parcon, Luis Bayag, and Vicente Bayoneta. On the plaintiffs’ bond, the court ordered a preventive attachment, but only 92 cavanes of palay were seized; after the defendants posted a counterbond of P2,000, the 92 cavanes were ordered released, yet the sheriff did not return them. The trial court issued successive orders directing the plaintiffs to return the attached palay, but they failed to comply, prompting the defendants to move that the bond posted by Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation be made answerable.Because of the continued noncompliance, on 4 September 1948 the court ordered (a) dismissal of the plaintiffs’ demand under Rule 30, Section 3, (b) plaintiffs’ payment of P1,610 plus legal interest from
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2744)
Facts:
- Underlying civil action and parties
- In Civil Case No. 768 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, plaintiffs (now recurrentes) sought, among other things, the delivery to them by the defendants (now respondents) Manuel Duenas, Jovita V. Duenas, Cesar Parcon, Luis Bayag, and Vicente Bayoneta of 180 cavanes of palay, or payment of its value of P1,800.
- Querube C. Makalintal was the Judge of First Instance of Iloilo.
- Constantino Z. Canto was the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo.
- Filemon Balbasteo was the Sheriff of the City of Iloilo.
- The Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation posted required bonds in connection with the preventive attachment and release of attached property.
- Preventive attachment, bonds, and partial seizure
- Based on the bond posted by the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, the trial court ordered the preventive attachment of the defendants’ properties.
- Only 92 cavanes of palay were actually attached.
- Contrabond, release of the attached palay, and non-return
- On the basis of a contrabond of P2,000 posted by the defendants, the trial court ordered the release (desembargo) of the 92 cavanes of palay.
- The sheriff did not return the 92 cavanes to the defendants.
- On 27 November 1947, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to return the attached effects to the defendants within one week, but the plaintiffs failed to comply.
- On 18 February 1948, the trial court issued another order, again directing the plaintiffs to return the attached effects to the defendants, but the plaintiffs again did not comply.
- Motion to enforce bond payment due to continued non-compliance
- Due to the plaintiffs’ continuing failure to comply with several return orders, the defendants filed, on 16 March 1948, a motion praying that the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation be ordered to pay the amount of its bond.
- At the hearing of the motion, evidence was presented showing that the 92 cavanes of palay were worth P1,610.
- On 30 July 1948, the defendants filed a supplemental motion praying for the dismissal (sobreseimiento) of the action because of the plaintiffs’ obstinate failure to comply with the return orders.
- Trial court orders of 4 September 1948, and execution-related order of 18 October 1948
- On 4 September 1948, relying on Rule 30, Article 3, the trial court ordered:
- On motion dated 13 October 1948, the trial judge issued, on 18 October 1948, an order of immediate execution of the dismissal order as to the payment of the value of the attached palay, and directed that this execution order be included in the record of the appeal.
- Plaintiffs’ attempt to suspend execution and denial of suspension
- On 20 November 1948, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission, pending the appeal, to file a bond of P1,600 (or such amount as the court would deem reasonable) to suspend the execution ordered.
- On 15 December 1948, the trial court denied that motion for suspension.
- Resort to certiorari and prohibitio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the challenged orders of the trial court (4 September 1948, 18 October 1948, and 15 December 1948) were void for alleged abuse of discretion, such that certiorari and prohibition would lie
- Whether the proper remedy was certiorari and prohibition or whether the matter should have been raised in an appeal.
- Whether, assuming an appeal had been taken, the absence of the appeal record and the substantial lapse of time affected the availability and propriety of the extraordinary remedies.
- Whether the plaintiffs could retain the 92 cavanes of palay notwithstanding their failure to comply with return orders after the release based on the defendants’ contrabond
- Whether, after approval of the defendants’ contrabond of P2,000, the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)