Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12581)
Facts:
Galvez v. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-12581, May 29, 1959, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose after the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 15437-R awarded appellate costs to plaintiff-appellee Maximo Galvez. Galvez’s counsel — Attys. Raquiza, Supnet, De Gracia and Asuncion (respondents and appellants here) — filed a bill of costs totaling P502.35 with the Clerk of Court of Manila on January 17, 1957. No immediate opposition having been received, counsel sought execution; a writ of execution was issued January 25, and funds of Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. (defendant-appellant) were garnished from the Philippine Bank of Commerce and collected by the clerk on January 27. The money was received by Atty. De Gracia.
Counsel for the defendant filed an opposition on January 24, contending the Court of Appeals’ general award referred only to appellate costs (much smaller in amount). Because of uncertainty, Judge Gregorio Narvasa of the Court of First Instance (CFI) issued an order on February 2 giving the defendant five days to seek clarification from the Court of Appeals. The defendant filed a petition for clarification on February 7; the Court of Appeals on February 22 resolved that the award covered costs incurred in the appellate court only.
Upon presentation of that resolution to the CFI, an initial CFI order on March 16 reduced the recoverable costs to P20.00 and directed the return of the excess (about P473) to the defendant. The CFI later set aside the return order on March 25 after learning the writ of execution had already been executed; but on April 16 the CFI again ordered appellee’s counsel to return P473. Notice was served April 22; the clerk later reported noncompliance and the defendant moved for execution upon appellant-counsel’s properties. Appellee’s counsel claimed that part of the seized amount (about P400) represented injunction-bond premiums recoverable as costs in the appellate court. After further motions and a show-cause proceeding, the CFI on June 26, 1957 issued the order under review: it declared appellee’s counsel in contempt and directed that Atty. De Gracia, who had received the sheriff’s check (variously recited in the record as P463.70 / P472.67 / P473), be imprisoned and kept in custody by the sheriff until the CFI’s April 28 order to return the amount was complied with, or until further order.
The counsel appealed the contempt order to the Supreme Court, arguing (1) that appellant’s own late filing o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did appellee’s counsel commit contempt of court justifying imprisonment under Rule 64, Sec. 7?
- Was the CFI’s order an unlawful imprisonment for nonpayment of a questiona...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)