Case Digest (G.R. No. 167976)
Facts:
Rosario T. Florendo, for herself and the other heirs of the late Dr. Regalado Florendo, Petitioner, vs. Paramount Insurance Corp. (now renamed as MAA General Assurance, Inc.), Respondent, G.R. No. 167976, January 21, 2010, Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from an action filed on March 11, 1999 by Rosario Florendo and the other heirs of her late husband (collectively, the Florendos) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, seeking annulment of Paramount Insurance Corp.’s liens over five agricultural lots in Dasmariñas, Cavite. The Florendos alleged that Rosario and her husband had purchased the lots in 1980 and had been paying taxes but had not caused registration of the titles in their names; Paramount had, earlier, caused annotations of attachment, sheriff’s sale and related liens on the titles after obtaining judgment in Civil Case No. 134374 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
On November 15, 2002 the RTC ruled for the Florendos, recognizing their rights over the lots, awarding them damages and attorneys’ fees, and ordering that the Florendos reimburse Paramount its bid of P1,750,000 plus interest and the real estate taxes paid; the RTC also allowed the Florendos to seek reimbursement from the vendor Aguirre. On December 20, 2002 Paramount appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 85397. On the same day the Florendos moved in the RTC for execution pending appeal, alleging as “special and good reasons” Rosario’s advanced age and life‑threatening illnesses, Paramount’s alleged dilatory and frivolous tactics and possible insolvency, and the Florendos’ willingness to post a bond.
The RTC granted execution pending appeal in a Special Order dated February 11, 2003 conditioned on a P4,000,000 bond and issued the corresponding writ on February 14, 2003. Paramount then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP 77213) on May 13, 2003 seeking to annul the RTC’s special order and asking for injunctive relief. On August 31, 2004 the Court of Appeals granted Paramount’s petition, concluding the RTC had no sufficient “good reasons” to allow execution pending appeal; the CA denied the Florendos’ motion for reconsideration on February 8, 2005.
Separately, in the appeal of the main case (CA-G.R. CV 85397) the Court of Appeals later ruled ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to Paramount’s petition for certiorari notwithstanding Paramount’s failure to first file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s special order?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in taking cognizance of the certiorari action where the matters raised were covered by Paramount’s appeal in the main case, thus amounting to forum shopping?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC’s special order for execution pending appeal for lack...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)