Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25393)
Facts:
Fernando Go, Go Nam, Ponciano Cui Villas, Francisco Cosuangco and South Pacific Hardware Co. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Special Fourth Division, Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation and Western Construction Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-25393, October 30, 1980, Supreme Court First Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.
The substantive litigation began when Western Construction Co., Inc. (plaintiff) sued Juanito Hubo and the surety on his bond, Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation (Visayan), in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo for collection of a sum of money arising from a contract. In Visayan’s answer it asserted a cross-claim against co-defendant Hubo and filed a third-party complaint against petitioners — the alleged indemnitors Fernando Go, Go Nam, Ponciano Cui Villas, Francisco Cosuangco, and South Pacific Hardware Co. — seeking recovery on their counter-bond executed in Visayan’s favor.
After trial the CFI dismissed Western’s complaint against Visayan and Hubo and likewise dismissed Visayan’s third-party complaint against petitioners. Only Western appealed the CFI’s adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals; Visayan did not appeal the dismissal of its cross-claim or its third-party complaint. Although the appeal was prosecuted with Western as the sole appellant and Visayan as sole appellee, petitioners’ counsel nevertheless received copies of Western’s notice of appeal and related papers and filed a brief on July 18, 1960, apparently believing they were involved in the appeal.
The Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) rendered judgment on October 2, 1965 reversing the CFI and ordered Visayan and Hubo to pay Western; critically, the CA also adjudged the indemnitors (petitioners) jointly and severally liable to reimburse Visayan for whatever Visayan paid Western, with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners then brought the present petition to the Supreme Court to challenge (1) the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to render judgment against them...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to render judgment imposing liability on petitioners who were neither appellants nor appellees in the appeal?
- Were petitioners denied due process when the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the third‑party complaint against them despite their not being parties to the appeal and not having been serv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)