Case Digest (G.R. No. 136726)
Facts:
Panfilo V. Villaruel, Jr. v. Reynaldo D. Fernando, Modesto Abarca, Jr. and Marilou M. Cleofas, G.R. No. 136726, September 24, 2003, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Panfilo V. Villaruel, Jr. was the Assistant Secretary of the Air Transportation Office (ATO), DOTC. Respondents Reynaldo D. Fernando, Modesto E. Abarca, Jr., and Marilou M. Cleofas were officials at the Civil Aviation Training Center (CATC). On 27 April 1995 petitioner detailed the respondents to the office of DOTC Undersecretary Primitivo C. Cal effective 2 May 1995; respondents sought reconsideration on 29 April 1995 but petitioner did not act on that request. On 19 July 1995 petitioner placed Abarca under a 90-day preventive suspension without pay pending investigation; respondents reported to Undersecretary Cal on 7 May 1995 and later sought the Ombudsman’s intervention.
Secretary Jesus B. Garcia issued a memorandum dated 9 November 1995 directing petitioner to recall the respondents to their mother unit, declaring continuous detail unlawful, but petitioner refused to comply. On 24 January 1996 respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus and Damages with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction in the RTC, Pasay City (Civil Case No. 96-0139). The trial court granted the ex parte preliminary mandatory injunction on 23 February 1996 and modified it by order dated 12 April 1996 to command petitioner to comply with Secretary Garcia’s 9 November 1995 directive until further order.
For failure to comply with the injunction, the trial court on 28 May 1996 found petitioner guilty of indirect contempt and issued a bench warrant. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 41263) challenging the contempt ruling; the CA later dismissed that petition as moot. Meanwhile the trial court declared petitioner in default for failure to file an answer, respondents presented evidence ex parte, and on 11 July 1996 the RTC rendered judgment permanently granting mandamus and awarding moral, exemplary and temperate damages and attorney’s fees.
The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 42447) but failed to file the required memorandum despite an extension; the CA dismissed the appeal by Resolution dated 13 March 1997, which became final and executory on 14 June 1997. Respondents moved for execution; the trial court issued a writ of execution (22 September 1997) and the sheriff set a sale (23 February 1998). Petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ of execution (17 February 1998), asserting denial of due process from the OSG’s negligence and invoking an Ombudsman resolution (OMB-ADM 0-96-0090 of 22 January 1997) that found Abarca guilty of violating Section 7(d) of RA 6713 and recommended administrative suspension.
The trial court quashed the sheriff’s sale for procedural defects but issued an alias writ; its denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was entered 28 April ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction and was the award of moral, exemplary and temperate damages to respondents legally supported?
- Did the negligence of the OSG preclude the trial court’s decision from becoming final and executory, i.e., does counsel’s negligence relieve petitioner of the judgment’s consequences?
- Was petitioner denied due process when the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for the OSG’s failure to file the memorandum?
- Did the Ombudsman’s resolution finding Abarca guilty of a violation of Section 7(d), RA 6713 render executio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)