Case Digest (G.R. No. 161110)
Facts:
Pal Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., Avelino L. Zapanta and Andrew L. Huang, G.R. No. 161110, March 30, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, CJ., writing for the Court.PESALA (petitioner before the Supreme Court) is a savings-and-loan association composed of PAL employees; it sued PAL (and originally Jose C. Blanco, later joined by Avelino Zapanta and Andrew Huang in ancillary proceedings) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 118, in Civil Case No. 97-1026 for specific performance, damages or declaratory relief with a prayer for temporary restraining order and injunction, challenging PAL’s imposition of a 40% limit on salary deductions for loan repayments and contributions. The RTC initially issued an injunction (September 3, 1997) conditioned on a P1,000,000 bond. After several motions and manifestations by PESALA asserting large undeducted remittances, Presiding Judge Nelson B. Bayot issued an Order on March 11, 1998 directing PAL to remit alleged undeducted amounts (later quantified by PESALA as P44,488,760.41). PESALA moved for execution of that Order; Judge Bayot denied execution (July 2, 1998) on the ground that the March 11, 1998 Order was interlocutory.
Respondents filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) attacking the March 11, 1998 Order; that petition was dismissed in a CA Resolution dated May 14, 1999 for procedural defects and the Entry of Judgment became final on June 17, 1999. PESALA later filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt (docketed Civil Case No. 00-0016) against Blanco, Zapanta and Huang alleging willful noncompliance with the March 11, 1998 Order. After consolidation and trial, RTC, Branch 118 (later paired with Branch 119 under Judge Pedro De Leon Gutierrez) issued a Consolidated Decision dated November 6, 2002 ordering among other things the remittance of P44,480,716.41, declaring the named officers guilty of indirect contempt, making the preliminary injunction permanent, awarding attorney’s fees, and ordering arrest if the amount were not remitted within three days.
Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal and, on November 11, 2002, moved to fix bond to stay execution; PESALA filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. On December 10–11, 2002 the RTC judge granted execution pending appeal and issued a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal and notices of garnishment to PAL’s depository banks; attempts at collection and an Order of Delivery of Money followed. Respondents filed urgent motions in the RTC to quash the writ and lift garnishments, which they allege were not heard; they then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 74581). On January 14, 2003 the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order, and on February 24, 2003 the CA (Tenth Division, penned by Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos) gr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the CA’s entertainment and grant of respondents’ petition for certiorari proper despite the pendency of respondents’ motions for reconsideration, to quash the writ of execution pending appeal, and to lift notices of garnishment before the RTC?
- Did respondents commit forum shopping by filing the certiorari petition with the CA while motions were pending in the RTC?
- Was the RTC’s issuance of the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal justified, i.e., did the trial court commit grave abuse of di...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)