Case Digest (G.R. No. 103585)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 103585)
Facts:
National Electrification Administration, G.R. No. 103585, October 06, 1997, the Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition challenged the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a Rule 65 certiorari action and raised four assignments of error.On March 8, 1985, private respondent Construction Services of Australia-Philippines, Inc. (CONSAPHIL) sued Engineering and Construction Corporation of Asia (ECCO‑ASIA) to collect money and damages arising from a sub‑contract with ECCO‑ASIA on a project for Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PANELCO); CONSAPHIL impleaded PANELCO and NEA alleging PANELCO was the ultimate beneficiary and NEA was manager/holder of foreign‑loan funds and was withholding a 10% retention due ECCO‑ASIA. On August 22, 1986, the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 98) issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining NEA from releasing the disputed retention and other funds amounting to about P1.2 million. CONSAPHIL sought, by motion, an order that NEA deposit the P1.2 million with Philippine National Bank (PNB), Philippine Heart Center for Asia (PHCA) branch; that motion was initially denied (Dec. 4, 1986) but the denial was later reconsidered (Mar. 3, 1987) and NEA was ordered to deposit the funds.
CONSAPHIL served a Request for Admission (Jan. 28, 1987) asking NEA to admit, among other matters, that the retained money NEA held amounted to P1,390,789.40; in its Response (Mar. 6, 1987) NEA admitted several paragraphs of the request, including the paragraph that the retained money belonged to ECCO‑ASIA and the amount involved. On August 6, 1990 the trial court dismissed the complaint against PANELCO and NEA and required NEA to surrender custody of the P1.2 million deposit to the court. NEA filed a partial motion for reconsideration contending that dismissal as to it lifted the injunction (citing Golez v. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187). On October 5, 1990 the trial court approved a compromise between CONSAPHIL and ECCO‑ASIA; a writ of execution was issued on October 17, 1990 against the P1.2 million at PNB and the sheriff executed against the deposit despite NEA’s motion to quash the writ (filed Oct. 24, 1990).
On December 3, 1991 NEA filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition in a decision dated January 14, 1992. NEA then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court raising four assignments of error: (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling NEA had no right of appeal from trial court orders and was therefore precluded from Rule 65; (2) that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the trial court’s October 5, 1990 judgment approving the compromise had res judicata effect against NEA; (3) that the Court of Appeals erred in finding NEA had admitted the P1.2 million belonged to ECCO‑ASIA; and (4) that the Court of Appeals failed to consider that the preliminary injunction had been automatically lifted by NEA’s dismissal pursuant to Golez v. Leonidas. The Court of Appeals’ reasoning and cited authorities are reflected in the records.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that NEA had no right of appeal from the trial court orders and was therefore precluded from resorting to a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the trial court decision of October 5, 1990 approving a compromise between CONSAPHIL and ECCO‑ASIA operates as res judicata against NEA?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that NEA, by its pleadings and responses, judicially admitted that the P1.2 million belonged to ECCO‑ASIA?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to recognize that the writ of preliminary injunction against NEA’s P1.2 million was automatically lifted upon dismissal of NEA from the case pursuant to Golez v. Leonidas?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)