Case Summary (G.R. No. 141386)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
The proceedings and the Court’s decision are governed by the 1987 Constitution as the controlling charter (decision rendered after 1990), by the Revised Rules of Court (notably Rule 65, and Rule 51, Section 7 regarding appellate procedure in the Court of Appeals), and established jurisprudence cited by the courts below.
RTC Judgment and Attempts at Service
DELTA was declared in default in Civil Case No. 84-23019. On December 5, 1984, the RTC rendered judgment ordering DELTA to pay P20,061,898.97 plus attorney’s fees (25% of total obligation) and costs. The judgment could not be personally served on DELTA because the corporation had earlier been dissolved; PNB had assumed DELTA’s operations. SIHI moved for and obtained an order permitting service of the judgment by publication (order of December 6, 1986); the judgment was published in a Manila weekly named the Thunderer. SIHI then moved for execution; the RTC issued a writ of execution on March 11, 1987, under which various DELTA properties were levied and sold.
First Court of Appeals Proceeding (CA-G.R. SP No. 23068) and Effect on Finality
DELTA initially filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 23068) asserting lack of valid service of summons and that the RTC decision was null and not final. By decision dated January 22, 1991, the Court of Appeals ruled that the RTC decision was validly rendered but that the record lacked proof that a copy of the judgment had been properly served on PNB (which had assumed DELTA’s operations). The CA concluded that, because service on the corporation’s successor was not shown, the judgment had not attained finality; service by publication did not cure that defect. The CA therefore held that DELTA could still be served and might appeal within the reglementary period once proper service occurred. Motions for reconsideration were denied.
Subsequent Procedural Steps, Dismissal of DELTA’s Notice of Appeal, and CA-G.R. SP No. 29147
After administrative and appellate maneuvers (including a denied petition for review at the Supreme Court for noncompliance with a procedural circular), DELTA filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC on November 12, 1991, stating it was appealing from the December 5, 1984 decision. SIHI moved to dismiss that Notice of Appeal on the ground that DELTA had obtained a certified true copy of the RTC decision on September 21, 1990 and thus the 15-day appeal period had expired. The RTC dismissed DELTA’s Notice of Appeal; DENIALs of motions for reconsideration by the RTC followed. DELTA filed certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 29147) seeking annulment of the RTC orders dismissing the Notice of Appeal and elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 and Related Appeals
The Court of Appeals issued a restraining order in October 1992, gave due course to DELTA’s petition, and after full briefing promulgated judgment on June 17, 1993 setting aside the RTC orders (dismissing the Notice of Appeal and denying reconsideration) and ordering the RTC to elevate the records to the Court of Appeals. The RTC complied and elevated the records. SIHI appealed that CA decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 110677), contending DELTA had lost the right to appeal because of lapse of the 15-day period from receipt of the certified copy. While SIHI’s petition was pending before this Court, DELTA filed an Omnibus Motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147.
The Omnibus Motion: Relief Sought and Initial CA Treatment
On February 14, 1994 DELTA filed an Omnibus Motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 seeking, among other things, (1) declaration null and void ab initio of the RTC order of March 11, 1987 issuing the writ of execution, (2) declaration null and void of the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto, and (3) annulment of sheriff’s proceedings implementing the writ. SIHI opposed the Omnibus Motion arguing that (a) the CA lacked jurisdiction to act because of a pending petition for review with the Supreme Court, (b) the Omnibus Motion was barred by res judicata, and (c) the filing constituted forum-shopping. The CA, noting a pending Supreme Court petition involving the same parties, initially declined to act on the Omnibus Motion.
Court of Appeals Resolutions of January 5, 1995 and July 14, 1995; Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification
After the Supreme Court denied SIHI’s petition and motion for reconsideration, DELTA renewed its request that the CA resolve the Omnibus Motion. On January 5, 1995 the Court of Appeals denied DELTA’s Omnibus Motion on the ground that the matters sought were not issues raised by petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 and therefore were not within the CA’s jurisdiction in that petition. DELTA moved for reconsideration, arguing (inter alia) that the Omnibus Motion relief fell within the general prayer of the petition and that it could not file the motion in the RTC because the records had already been elevated. SIHI filed a motion for clarification seeking deletion of a paragraph in the CA’s January 5, 1995 Resolution that characterized certain trial-court proceedings as null and void. On July 14, 1995 the CA granted SIHI’s motion for clarification (deleting the paragraph) and denied DELTA’s motion for reconsideration, holding that the only issues in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 were the validity of the RTC orders dated June 3, 1992 and September 14, 1992, and that matters in DELTA’s Omnibus Motion were not within the scope of that petition.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court and Standard of Review
DELTA’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court challenged the CA’s two Resolutions (January 5 and July 14, 1995), principally contending that (1) the Omnibus Motion raised matters incidental to and included in the CA’s appellate jurisdiction and therefore the CA had jurisdiction to decide them, and (2) the CA erred in deleting the paragraph challenged by SIHI because that paragraph contained factual findings and therefore was not mere obiter dictum. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the CA committed reversible error in declining to adjudicate matters not pleaded and in striking the paragraph as obiter dictum.
Supreme Court Reasoning and Disposition
The Supreme Court found no reversible error. It reasoned that the June 17, 1993 CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 had become final as to DELTA and that the only issues properly raised and argued in that petition were the validity of the RTC orders of June 3, 1992 and September 14, 1992. The Omnibus Motion sought relief concerning orde
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 141386)
Case Caption and Judicial Source
- Reported at 342 Phil. 173, Third Division, G.R. No. 121075, July 24, 1997.
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by Delta Motors Corporation (DELTA) against the Court of Appeals and private respondent State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI).
- Decision authored by Justice Davide, Jr.; Narvasa (Chairman), Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur; Melo, J., did not take part.
Material Parties
- Petitioner: Delta Motors Corporation (DELTA).
- Private respondent: State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI).
- Judicial respondent: Court of Appeals (including Hon. Roberto M. Lagman referenced in the caption).
Underlying Civil Action and Trial Court Disposition
- SIHI instituted an action for a sum of money against DELTA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch VI, docketed as Civil Case No. 84-23019.
- DELTA was declared in default.
- On 5 December 1984, the RTC (Judge Ernesto Tengco) rendered a decision ordering DELTA to pay P20,061,898.97 and 25% of the total obligation as attorney’s fees, plus costs of suit (dispositive portion quoted in the record).
Service Difficulties, Publication, and Execution Proceedings
- The RTC decision could not be served on DELTA personally or by registered mail because DELTA had earlier been dissolved.
- Philippine National Bank (PNB) had taken over DELTA’s operations in the meantime.
- On 4 November 1986, SIHI moved for service of the decision by publication; the trial court allowed such service in its order of 6 December 1986.
- The decision was published in the Thunderer, a weekly newspaper published in Manila.
- After publication, SIHI moved for execution; on 11 March 1987 the trial court granted the motion and ordered issuance of a writ of execution on the ground that no appeal had been taken by DELTA despite publication.
- Pursuant to execution, properties of DELTA in Iloilo and Bacolod City were levied upon and sold; the sheriff levied on other DELTA properties as well.
DELTA’s Special Civil Action in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 23068) — First CA Proceeding
- DELTA filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 23068.
- DELTA’s contentions in that petition:
- (a) The trial court lacked jurisdiction over DELTA due to no valid/proper service of summons, rendering the RTC decision null and void; and
- (b) The alleged void decision never became final and executory.
- The Court of Appeals’ decision of 22 January 1991:
- Ruled against DELTA on the question of jurisdiction over the corporation’s person.
- Found, however, that the record showed no proper service of a copy of the assailed judgment on PNB (which had assumed DELTA’s operations), and therefore the RTC decision had not become executory (citing Vda. de Espiritu v. CFI, Tuazon v. Molina).
- Stated that service by publication did not cure the fatal defect.
- Decreed that although the RTC decision was validly rendered, it had not attained finality pending service of a copy on DELTA, which may appeal within the reglementary period.
- DELTA’s motion for reconsideration reiterated absence of valid service of summons and alleged RTC decision’s nonconformity with the Rules.
- SIHI’s motion for reconsideration argued, inter alia, that DELTA was not dissolved (or that its corporate personality to receive service subsisted) and that DELTA had lost its right to appeal.
- The Court of Appeals denied these motions in its resolution of 27 May 1991.
DELTA’s Petition for Review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 100366)
- DELTA filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 100366).
- The Supreme Court denied the petition in its resolution of 16 September 1991 for non-compliance with Circular No. 1-88; a reconsideration motion was denied in the resolution of 9 October 1991 (copy received by DELTA on 31 October 1991).
Notice of Appeal Filed in the Trial Court and Subsequent Dismissal
- On 12 November 1991, DELTA filed a Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 84-23019, indicating appeal from the 5 December 1984 decision and requesting elevation of records to the Court of Appeals.
- SIHI moved to dismiss DELTA’s notice of appeal (2 December 1991), asserting DELTA had obtained a certified true copy of the decision on 21 September 1990 and thus had only 15 days from that date to appeal.
- The trial court dismissed the Notice of Appeal; DELTA moved for reconsideration, which SIHI opposed.
- The trial court denied DELTA’s motion for reconsideration in its order of 14 September 1992.
DELTA’s Second Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 29147)
- DELTA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, praying for:
- Annulment of the RTC order dated 3 June 1992 dismissing the Notice of Appeal dated 6 November 1991;
- Annulment of the RTC order dated 14 September 1992 denying reconsideration; and
- Elevation of the original records of Civil Case No. 84-23019 to the Court of Appeals.
- On 30 October 1992, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the RTC decision that was the subject of the petition.
- On 22 December 1992, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition, treated SIHI’s comments as an answer, and required memoranda.
- On 17 June 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, the dispositive portion of which set aside the RTC orders of 3 June 1992 and 14 September 1992 and ordered the RTC to elevate the records to the Court of Appeals on appeal.
SIHI’s Petition for Review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 110677) and Its Resolution
- SIHI appealed the Court of Appeals’ 17 June 1993 decision to the Supreme Court by petition for review, docketed G.R. No. 110677.
- SIHI’s position included contention that DELTA had lost its right to appeal because more than 15 days had elapsed from DELTA’s receipt of a certified true copy of the RTC decision.
- While SIHI’s petition was pending before the Supreme Court, DELTA filed an Omnibus Motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 (14 February 1994).
DELTA’s Omnibus Motion Filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 (14 February 1994)
- DELTA’s Omnibus Motion sought:
- Declaration null and void ab initio of the RTC order dated 11 March 1987 ordering issuance of the writ of execution;
- Declaration null and void ab initio of the writ of execution issued pursuant to the 11 March 1987 order;
- Annulment of all proceedings held, conducted and executed by the respondent sheriff implementing the writ of execution.
- SIHI opposed the Omnibus Motion on grounds that:
- (a) a pending petition for review with the Supreme Court deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to entertain the Omnibus Motion;
- (b) the Omnibus Motion was barred by res judicata; and
- (c) the Omnibus Motion constituted forum shopping and should be denied.
Court of Appeals’ Initial Response to the Omnibus Motion and Subsequent Developments
- In its resolution of 7 June 1994, the Court of Appeals noted DELTA’s Omnibus Motion and stated th