Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47740)
Facts:
Lim Pin v. Sps. Conchita Liao Tan and Tan Cho Hua and Honorable Cancio C. Garcia, G.R. No. 47740, July 20, 1982, Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Lim Pin (defendant in the trial court) and respondents are Spouses Conchita Liao Tan and Tan Cho Hua (plaintiffs in the trial court) and Judge Cancio C. Garcia, Presiding Judge of Branch I, City Court of Caloocan City. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for unlawful detainer on August 12, 1977, alleging that Lim Pin had failed to pay monthly rentals on a portion of a registered parcel at 91 Francisco Street, Caloocan City, and demanded unpaid rentals plus attorney’s fees.
The City Court of Caloocan City conducted several hearings (initially set for September 1, 1977, reset to September 14 and later to October 19, 1977). On October 19, 1977, with petitioner absent but represented by her son George Hung and her counsel Atty. Pastor Mamaril, and with the plaintiffs present, the court—on the court’s initiative—formulated and reduced to writing a compromise agreement which the court approved and incorporated into a judgment dated October 19, 1977. The compromise recited admissions of arrearages totaling P18,000, agreed future rentals escalating to P5,000 by December 1977, payment of attorney’s fees, and a clause entitling plaintiffs to immediate writ of execution if arrears and fees were not paid by October 31, 1977.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 28, 1977, asserting she never authorized her son or counsel to enter into the compromise and that she would not have acceded had she been present. Plaintiffs filed an “Urgent Motion For Immediate Execution” on November 3, 1977. The trial court resolved these matters in an Order dated January 26, 1978: it denied the motion for reconsideration, found George Hung in direct contempt (fine P200), declined to hold Atty. Mamaril in contempt, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. A writ of execution was issued and, according to the record, a City Sheriff served notices dated February 3, 1978 (received by the plaintiff on February 31, 1978).
Petitioner sought relief in the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; the Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 8, 1978 enjoining enforcement of the trial court’s execution. The Court noted that ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion by allowing the October 19, 1977 compromise agreement to be entered into in the absence of petitioner?
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordering issuance of execution on th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)