Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32550)
Facts:
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, et al., G.R. No. L-32550, October 27, 1983, the Supreme Court First Division, Relova, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA); respondents include the trial judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, branch IV, several private plaintiff-planter associations and corporations who sued PVTA (and the Central Cooperative Exchange, Inc. as co-defendant) in three consolidated civil actions, and the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, garnishee in the execution.
In October–December 1967 plaintiffs (various planters associations and corporations) filed Civil Cases Nos. Q-11548, Q-11658 and Q-11672 against PVTA and CCE for alleged unpaid tobacco shipments. The defendants denied delivery and/or liability and interposed crossclaims. The three cases were jointly tried. Over time several partial judgments were rendered in favor of some plaintiffs and, on October 30, 1969, the trial court rendered further partial judgments adverse to PVTA.
On October 31, 1969 plaintiffs moved for execution pending appeal, asserting among other grounds that the partial judgments rested on incontrovertible facts, that their claims enjoyed statutory priority under Republic Act No. 4155, Sec. 5, and that delay would render any judgment hollow because of the uncertain future of the tobacco subsidy. PVTA opposed. On November 5, 1969 the trial court granted execution pending appeal in a special order reciting its reasons (including statutory priority and risk of an "empty judgment") and conditioned execution on plaintiffs' filing of a bond to answer should they later be adjudged not entitled to the amounts collected. Pursuant to that order, a writ of execution and a notice of garnishment for P647,572.93 were issued on November 14, 1969, and on November 17 the court ordered the garnishee, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, to release those funds to plaintiffs' counsel.
PVTA sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction to set aside the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed PVTA's petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit a grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal so as to warrant relief by certiorari?
- Was certiorari proper given that PVTA had an adequate remedy to stay execution by posting a su...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)