Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4559)
Facts:
Agustin P. Montesa, etc., y Otros v. Manila Cordage Company, G.R. No. L-4559, September 17, 1952, the Supreme Court En Banc, Pablo, J., writing for the Court.This case arose from the seizure on March 7, 1950, by the Sheriff of Manila pursuant to a writ in Civil Case No. 9126 (titled Manila Cordage Company v. Yu Bon Chiong) of a 1950 Buick Sedan (plate No. 1074) owned by Yu Bon Chiong. On March 8, two persons — Hao Yu Guan (alias A. Lao Roldan) and Rufino Ibanez — each filed claims of third-party interest (reclamacion de terceria): Hao asserted a chattel mortgage in his favor (citing Law No. 3952, art. 4), while Rufino claimed co-ownership/possession as driver. The Sheriff advised Manila Cordage Company to furnish bond to avoid release; the Fidelity & Surety Co. posted bond at Manila Cordage Company’s request under Rule 59, art. 14.
On March 17, 1950 the third-party claimants filed an independent action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 10624) against Manila Cordage Company, the Fidelity & Surety Co., and the Sheriff, seeking an interlocutory writ commanding delivery of the Buick to them and restraining defendants, particularly the Sheriff, from holding the car. Judge Agustin P. Montesa granted the ex parte interlocutory writ and the Sheriff, complying, delivered the automobile to the third-party plaintiffs.
Manila Cordage Company promptly moved to dissolve Judge Montesa’s interlocutory order, arguing that the Buick was already under a valid preventive attachment in Civil Case No. 9126 issued by Judge Macadaeg, so Montesa had exceeded his jurisdiction and unlawfully interfered with another judge’s order. Judge Pecson denied the urgent motion on April 18, and Judge Montesa denied a motion for reconsideration on May 23. Manila Cordage Company brought a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals seeking revocation of Montesa’s interlocutory order. On December 29, 1950, the Court of Appeals revoked Judge Montesa’s order dissolving the preventive attachment. Thereafter, Judge Montesa, Hao Yu Guan and Rufino Ibanez appealed to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
In the proceedings below and in this Court the parties debated precedential doctrines (notably Cabigao v. Del Rosario, Hubahib v. Insular Drug Co., and Mercado v. Oc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Montesa have jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory order dissolving or annulling a preventive attachment previously issued by another judge of the same Court of First Instance?
- Were the third-party claimants entitled to interlocutory delivery of the seized automobile under Regla 62 given the existence of preventive attachment and the security actually posted?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in revoking...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)