Case Digest (G.R. No. 201417)
Facts:
Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Cardline Inc., Mary C. Calubad, Sony N. Calubad, and Ng Beng Sheng, G.R. No. 201417, January 13, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation (Orix) leased four machines to Cardline Inc. (Cardline) under three similar lease agreements; Cardline’s principal stockholders/officers — Mary C. Calubad, Sony N. Calubad, and Ng Beng Sheng (the individual respondents) — signed continuing surety/suretyship instruments in their personal capacities guaranteeing Cardline’s obligations. Cardline defaulted in rental payments, the unpaid obligations totaling P9,369,657.00 as of July 12, 2007.
Orix filed a complaint for replevin, sum of money and damages with an application for a writ of seizure against Cardline and the individual respondents in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (Civil Case No. 07‑855). The RTC issued a writ of seizure to recover the machines, declared the respondents in default for failing to file an answer, allowed Orix to present evidence ex parte, and on May 6, 2008 rendered judgment awarding Orix: P9,369,657.00 (or whatever balance remained after recovery or sale of the machines), 30% attorney’s fees, 25% liquidated damages, and expenses for recovery.
The respondents appealed; the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed the appeal as CA‑G.R. CV No. 91626 and the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 189877) later denied relief — that denial became final and executory. Separately, Ng Beng Sheng filed a petition for annulment of judgment (CA‑G.R. SP No. 115904), which the CA dismissed on grounds of forum shopping and res judicata.
Orix moved for issuance of a writ of execution; the RTC granted the motion in an Order dated December 1, 2010, and the clerk issued the writ. The respondents’ motion for a status quo ante was denied by the RTC. The respondents then filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 before the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 118226), with an application for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, arguing that the outstanding rent was offset by (a) the market value of the machines returned to Orix (valued at P14,481,500.00) and (b) a guaranty deposit (P1,635,638.89).
The CA, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz (concurred in by Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Socorro B. Inting), granted the petition, annulled the RTC’s December 1, 2010 order and prohibited the sheriff from executing the May 6, 2008 judgment on t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondents commit forum shopping when they filed the petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly prohibit the RTC from enforcing the writ of execution by holding that the returned machines’ market value and the guaranty deposit fully satisfied Cardline’s indebtedness?
- Are the individual respondents entitl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)