Case Digest (G.R. No. 74694)
Facts:
Nordic Asia Limited (now known as DNC Ltd.) and Bankers Trust Co. v. Hon. Roque Agton, G.R. No. 74694. June 27, 1990, Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.
In September 1985 Jibsen Trading Corporation contracted to supply Philippine Bakers, Inc. (Philbake) with 25,000 MT of wheat flour. On November 29, 1985 the supplier loaded 14,200 MT aboard the M/V “FYLYPPA.” The vessel’s documentation named Sextant Maritime S.A. as registered owner, although the attached charter party showed P. V. Christensen Lines as owner/time charterer and Theilship as manager. The ship arrived in Davao about 22 days late; chartering and port expenses were advanced by Jibsen and Jibfair.
On January 14, 1986 Jibsen (a Nauru corporation) and Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation (a Philippine corporation) filed Civil Case No. 17917 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, Branch XVI, against P. V. Christensen, Theilship and Sextant, seeking sums, a restraining order, mandatory injunction and attachment. On January 15, 1986 the respondent judge issued orders: to unload the cargo, to enjoin defendants from removing the vessel from Philippine territory, and to attach the vessel; the attachment was implemented although the other orders were frustrated by an earlier arrest order issued by RTC Makati.
Philbake sought and was granted leave to intervene on January 23, 1986. On the same day Nordic Asia Limited (DnC) and Bankers Trust Co. (foreign corporations claiming to be unpaid mortgagees) moved to intervene and filed a complaint-in-intervention; Jibsen/Jibfair opposed, contesting their capacity to sue. On February 28, 1986 DnC and Bankers Trust posted a counterbond equal to the private plaintiffs’ claims and moved to approve the counterbond and discharge the attachment.
On April 1, 1986 the RTC, Branch XVI granted intervention but denied approval of the counterbond and discharge of attachment for two reasons: petitioners were not shown to be owners nor appearing for owners, and a counterbond to discharge attachment must be equal to the value of the property attached. Petitioners filed a partial reconsideration and offered to post additional counterbond and argued their status as unpaid mortgagees. While the judge was determining the amount, all defendants were declared in default.
By May 2, 1986 the RTC issued an order conditioning discharge of the attachment on equitable terms: (1) security to plaintiffs and intervenors to answer for any judgment; (2) security acceptable to parties but subject to the court’s assessment and final approval; and (3) if on the mixed law-and-equity ground the mortgagees sought discharge, they must file a counterbond equal to the value of the property attached — the judge directed all parties to submit proposals for security and an approximate valuation within five days.
Without complying with that order, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for mandamus and certiorari in the Supreme Court on June 4, 1986 seeking compulsion to accept their counterbond and discharge the attachment and annulment of the May 2, 1986 order. Petitioners also informed the Court that the vessel had been sold at public auction on May 29, 1986 pursuant to P.D. 1521 (Ship Mortgage Decree) and that the RTC, Pasay, Branch CXIII, confirmed the sale on June 3, 1986; they later manifested the vessel sailed out of Manila on June 4, 1986.
The Court initially gave due course to the petition on Mar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Rule 65 petition by petitioners premature for failing to comply with the RTC’s May 2, 1986 order and thus improperly brought before the Supreme Court?
- Did the petition become moot and academic because the vessel had been sold and removed from Philippine territory, leaving no practical relief...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)