Title
Acaban vs. Ortega
Case
G.R. No. 38515-16
Decision Date
Jun 19, 1982
A final judgment favoring Acaban was enforced via garnishment, but B & B sought annulment, leading to an injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed Acaban's petition as moot after the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment's validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 38515-16)

Background and Procedural History

On January 30, 1970, the CFI of Manila issued a decision in Civil Case No. 75138, ordering B & B to pay Acaban a total sum that included principal amounts, interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Following this judgment, Acaban sought to enforce the decision through garnishment of B & B's bank deposits. However, more than two years later, B & B challenged this judgment in a separate case (Civil Case No. 86246), claiming lack of jurisdiction and that it had not been properly served with summons. The court initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction that restrained Acaban and the Manila Sheriff from enforcing the earlier judgment.

Issues Before the Court

The petition raised two central issues:

  1. Whether a judgment debtor like B & B is entitled to an injunctive writ that stops the execution of a final judgment.
  2. Whether the respondent judge abused discretion when denying Acaban's motion to proceed with garnishment.

Court's Findings and Ruling

The Court found that there was no need to resolve the posed issues due to the subsequent developments in the related cases. Specifically, the Court of Appeals had upheld the decision of Judge Ortega to dismiss B & B’s complaint in Civil Case No. 86246, which reaffirmed the validity of the original judgment in Civil Case No. 75138. Since the appellate court's ruling rendered the original judgment final and executory, the petition filed by Acaban was deemed moot

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.