Case Digest (G.R. No. 100239)
Facts:
Bonifacio S. Maceda, Jr. and Teresita Maceda v. Moreman Builders Co., Inc., and Hon. Benjamin A.G. Vega, G.R. No. 100239, October 28, 1991, the Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Bonifacio S. Maceda, Jr. and Teresita Maceda were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 113498 for rescission of contract and damages with preliminary attachment pending before Branch 39 of the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) of Manila; Moreman Builders Co., Inc. was among the defendants and Hon. Benjamin A.G. Vega was the presiding judge. Upon plaintiffs' application, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the sheriff levied certain properties which were inventoried.
On 28 November 1978 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, rescinding the contract and awarding damages and attorney’s fees (aggregate sums specified in the judgment). Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the CA dismissed the appeal on 7 March 1989; a subsequent petition to this Court in G.R. No. 88310 was denied and that denial was declared final, with this Court characterizing the appeal as dilatory and noting failures in completing the record on appeal. The judgment of 28 November 1978 was declared immediately executory by this Court.
After exhaustion of those remedies, petitioners filed a motion for execution of the 1978 judgment. Respondent Moreman and other respondents opposed, asserting that the judgment had been satisfied (or even oversatisfied) by the properties levied at the time of the attachment; they pointed to an inventory whose total they claimed exceeded the judgment. On 26 October 1990 the trial court issued an order granting issuance of a writ of execution. Following motions and a hearing, however, on 23 May 1991 the trial judge denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration but simultaneously stayed the 26 October 1990 execution order and created a three‑member committee (chairman: Clerk of Court; one member named by plaintiffs; one by defendants) to locate the attached properties and determine their values both at levy and at present, directing the clerk to issue the writ of execution only after the court had "appreciated" the committee's report.
Without first filing a motion for reconsideration of that 23 May 1991 order, petitioners filed the present petition in this Court seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandamus directing respondent judge to vacate the stay...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition fatally defective for failure to seek reconsideration of the questioned trial court order before filing in this Court?
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion by staying the order granting issuance of a writ of execution and creating a committee to locate and value attached properties b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)