Case Digest (G.R. No. 111159)
Facts:
On May 26, 1981, Sextant Maritime, S.A. borrowed US$5,300,000 from petitioners Nordic Asia Limited (now known as DNC Limited) and Bankers Trust Company, to purchase the vessel M/V Fylyppa; petitioners received a First Preferred Mortgage as security. After default, petitioners instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under P.D. 1521. On the same day, respondents Nam Ung Marine Co., Ltd. and 27 crew members filed a collection case before the RTC of Manila to claim preferred maritime liens under the Code of Commerce and P.D. 1521 for unpaid wages, overtime, allowances, and other benefits, with M/V Fylyppa arrested after the filing; petitioners were granted leave to intervene, posted a counterbond, and later sought to lift the order of default and/or expunge ex parte evidence after they did not attend the hearings.The RTC rendered judgment awarding, among others, crew wages and Nam Ung’s agency fees and related expenses, and ordered the counterbond to answer. Petitioners a
Case Digest (G.R. No. 111159)
Facts:
- Loan, mortgage security, and default
- On May 26, 1981, Sextant Maritime, S.A. (Sextant) borrowed US$5,300,000 from petitioners Nordic Asia Limited (now known as DNC Limited) and Bankers Trust Company.
- Sextant used the loan proceeds to purchase the vessel M/V Fylyppa.
- As security, a First Preferred Mortgage over M/V Fylyppa was constituted in favor of petitioners.
- Sextant defaulted on the loan.
- Petitioners instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under P.D. 1521.
- Concurrent collection case by crew and manning agent; arrest of vessel
- On the same day petitioners instituted the extrajudicial proceedings, respondents Nam Ung Marine Co., Ltd. (manning agent) and twenty-seven (27) crew members filed a collection case before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC).
- The collection case sought to claim their preferred maritime liens under the Code of Commerce and P.D. 1521.
- The claims included unpaid wages, overtime pay, allowances, and other benefits due to them for services on board M/V Fylyppa, and for manning and provisioning thereof.
- Impleaded defendants were:
- M/V Fylyppa (the vessel),
- Maritime (the registered owner of the vessel),
- P.V. Christensen Lines (time-charterer),
- Theil Bolvinkel Shipping, A.S. (ship manager),
- Jibfair Shipping (alleged local ship agent).
- After filing the complaint, the manning agent and crewmen were able to cause the arrest of the vessel.
- Petitioners’ intervention; counterbond; default; ex parte evidence
- Upon learning of the collection case, petitioners filed with the RTC a motion for leave to intervene.
- Petitioners alleged they held a mortgage over the vessel and that their intervention would only be to oppose respondents’ unfounded and grossly exaggerated claims.
- After intervention was granted, petitioners discharged the attachment over the vessel by posting a counterbond.
- Jibfair Shipping filed a motion to dismiss.
- All other defendants failed to file responsive pleadings.
- The RTC declared all defendants except Jibfair Shipping in default and directed respondents to present evidence ex-parte.
- Respondents presented evidence in four separate hearings.
- Petitioners, admitted as intervenors, did not attend any of the four hearings.
- Petitioners later filed a motion to lift order of default and/or to expunge ex parte evidence.
- RTC decision and awards; counterbond answerable
- The RTC rendered a decision (rendered October 30, 1987).
- The RTC ordered defendants to pay, among others:
- the wages of the crewmen,
- Nam Ung Marine Ltd.’s agency fees,
- other expenses incurred for manning the vessel during its last voyage.
- The RTC further ordered the counterbond posted by petitioners to answer for all the awards.
- Appellate proceedings: Appeal Case and Certiorari Case
- Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 21343 (the Appeal Case).
- Upon motion by respondents, the RTC issued an order of execution pending appeal.
- Petitioners instituted a second action with the Court of Appeals to question the execution pending appeal.
- The second case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 13874 (the Certiorari Case).
- The Certiorari Case was disposed of first by the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of execution pending appeal in all respects, except for the portion allowing immediate execution on:
- moral damages,
- attorneys fees,
- litigation expenses,
- interest,
- on the ground that these cannot be...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Right to intervene and sufficiency of the complaint-in-intervention
- Whether petitioners’ complaint-in-intervention failed to state a cause of action for lack of ultimate facts.
- Whether petitioners met the requisites for intervention, particularly:
- legal interest in the matter in litigation; and
- whether adjudication of the original parties’ rights would delay or prejudice the intervenor’s rights, or whether intervenor’s rights could be protected in a separate proceeding.
- Forum shopping
- Whether petitioners committed forum shopping by filing:
- the Certiorari Case questioning the order of execution pending appeal; a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)