Title
Demaisip vs. Makalintal
Case
G.R. No. L-2744
Decision Date
May 30, 1950
Plaintiffs failed to return seized palay despite court orders, leading to case dismissal, monetary liabilities, and denial of certiorari due to abandoned appeal.
civil case
damages
court order
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2744)

Factual Background

In Civil Case No. 768, the plaintiffs claimed, among other relief, the delivery to them of one hundred eighty cavanes of palay or the equivalent value of P1,800. Because a bail bond had been filed by the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, the court issued an order of preventive attachment over the defendants’ properties. However, only ninety-two cavanes of palay were actually attached.

After the defendants posted a counterbond in the amount of P2,000, the trial court ordered the release (dismissal of the attachment) of the seized ninety-two cavanes. The sheriff did not return the palay. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to comply with subsequent court orders demanding restitution of the attached property.

On November 27, 1947, the trial court directed the plaintiffs to return the seized effects to the defendants within one week, but the plaintiffs did not comply. On February 18, 1948, upon the defendants’ petition, the court issued another order again instructing the plaintiffs to return the same seized effects. This too was ignored. Because of this continued refusal, the defendants moved on March 16, 1948 that the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation be ordered to pay the amount of its bond. At the hearing, evidence established that the ninety-two cavanes of palay were worth P1,610. In a supplemental motion filed on July 30, 1948, the defendants further sought the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ persistent disobedience of the various return orders.

Trial Court Proceedings Under Rule 30, Article 3

The trial court granted the defendants’ supplemental prayer and anchored its action on Rule 30, Article 3. On September 4, 1948, it ordered: first, the dismissal (dismissal of the complaint); second, that Gaudencio D. Demaisip and Modesta P. Demaisip pay the defendants P1,610, with legal interests commencing November 27, 1947; and third, that the surety house pay the defendants P1,000, representing the bond amount for partial satisfaction of damages totaling P1,610.

Following a motion dated October 13, 1948 by the defendants, the trial judge issued on October 18, 1948 an order for the immediate execution of the dismissal order insofar as it required payment of the value of the seized palay, while also directing that this execution order be included in the appellate record.

Post-Order Motions and Requests to Suspend Execution

While the dismissal and its execution were being contested, the plaintiffs sought relief after the October 18, 1948 execution directive. On November 20, 1948, through a properly presented motion, the plaintiffs requested that, during the pendency of the appeal, they be allowed to file an additional bond of P1,600 (or such other amount as the trial court might deem reasonable) to suspend the execution ordered by the court. On December 15, 1948, the trial court denied that request.

These three orders dated September 4, 1948, October 18, 1948, and December 15, 1948 were the subject of the present challenge.

Parties’ Contentions in the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

The plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the questioned orders were void and of no effect because the trial court allegedly abused its discretion in issuing them. In their petition, they asserted that they had appealed the September 4, 1948 order and that the appellate records had already been transmitted to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, relied on a report from the court clerk stating that, as of May 25, 1950, no appeal record had yet been received in Civil Case No. 768.

The Court took note that any consideration of their petition for suspension under Rule 39, Article 2 had been premised on the assertion that an appeal had been duly filed and elevated. Yet, from the signature date of the petition on January 20, 1949 until May 25, 1950, the lapse of about one year, four months, and five days indicated that the plaintiffs likely did not pursue the appeal, and instead continued to rely on the petition as a substitute vehicle to overturn the trial court’s orders. The Court further emphasized that alleged errors in the issuance of the trial court’s orders should be raised through appeal, not through certiorari, unless no appeal was available.

Court’s Discussion on Availability of Certiorari and Effect of Abandonment

The Court held that if the lower court had erred in issuing the September 4, 1948, order, the error should have been corrected by appeal, not by certiorari. It ruled that certiorari is resorted to only when an appeal is not available. Since the appellate record had not been received and the timing suggested abandonment of the appeal, the Court concluded that the September 4, 1948 order had become final and binding.

The Court rejected the plai

...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.

About Privacy Terms