G.R. No. L-4268 - Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Ramos

Respondent Antonio Quirino initiated a libel suit (Civil Case No. 11531) against Aproniano G. Borres, Pedro Padilla, and Loreto Pastor of the Daily Record for damages amounting to P90,000.
Concurrent with the suit, Quirino secured a writ of preliminary attachment by posting a bond of P50,000, leading the Sheriff of Manila to attach certain office and printing equipment located in the premises of the Daily Record.

Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc. (doing business as Evening Herald Publishing Co., Inc.) asserted their ownership over the attached property by filing separate third-party claims with the sheriff.
In response, the sheriff required Quirino to post counterbonds: an initial amount of P41,500 for Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and P59,500 for Printers, Inc.; these were later reduced by the court to P11,000 and P10,000 respectively upon Quirino’s motion under Section 13, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court.

Unable to quash the attachment through their third-party claim, on October 7, 1950, Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc. filed a joint suit (Civil Case No. 12263) aimed at:

Enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the attachment of the disputed properties.
Claiming damages amounting to P45,000.

During the pendency of the libel case (handled by Judge Sanchez), Case No. 12263 was assigned to Judge Pecson, who issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the sheriff from executing further attachment on the said properties.

After Judge Pecson’s issuance of the preliminary injunction, Quirino filed an ex parte petition for its dissolution. Judge Simeon Ramos, who later handled Case No. 12263, approved the petition on a bond of P21,000.
On reconsideration, Judge Ramos set aside his previous order on a motion by Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc., and scheduled a hearing for October 14, subsequently continuing the hearing to October 16.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Ramos directed the parties to submit memoranda addressing whether the issues in Case No. 12263 should be resolved through:

Based on the memoranda, Judge Ramos declared that Case No. 12263 was “unnecessary, superfluous and illegal” and dismissed it.
He maintained that the appropriate course for Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc. was to intervene in the existing libel suit rather than file an independent action.
The dismissal was rendered without any formal motion to dismiss being filed, raising questions regarding judicial authority and procedural propriety.

Did Judge Ramos have the authority to dismiss Case No. 12263 at the stage when no motion to dismiss or answer had been formally filed?
Was the dismissal proper under Section 1 of Rule 8 and Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, which require a formal motion to dismiss?

Should Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc. have sought intervention in the existing libel case (Case No. 11531) rather than bringing a separate independent suit?
What are the implications of choosing intervention versus a separate action regarding judicial efficiency and avoidance of multiplicity of suits?

Did Judge Pecson or Judge Ramos have jurisdiction in Case No. 12263 to issue orders quashing the preliminary attachment imposed in Case No. 11531?
How does the sheriff’s attachment, executed beyond his prescribed limits, affect the jurisdictional authority of the court in intervening in property rights disputes?