G.R. No. 153745-46 - Pulumbarit, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153745-46)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Principal events and rulings: authorization to seek buyer and negotiations in 1982; letters and requests for replacement checks in June 1983; complaint filed as Civil Case No. 7250‑M (trial court); default judgment entered September 5, 1984 and later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 15, 1989; trial court Decision for plaintiffs promulgated July 15, 2000; trial court ordered execution pending appeal September 13, 2000; CA issued TRO January 26, 2001 and preliminary injunction March 28, 2001; CA Resolution granting execution pending appeal dated May 30, 2002 (later suspended); CA Decision reversing the trial court issued September 28, 2004 (held that agreement was a sale); the Supreme Court rendered its decision October 14, 2015. Applicable constitution: 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law and Rules Cited

Governing norms referenced by the Court: 1987 Philippine Constitution (as the pertinent constitution for decisions after 1990); Rules of Court provisions on execution pending appeal (Rule 39, Sections 3 and 4) and discretionary execution (Rule 30, Section 2); Rules on receivership as provisional/ancillary remedy (Rule 59); Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) on raffle and consolidation; doctrines on forum‑shopping, abuse of court processes, res judicata (bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment), and controlling jurisprudence cited by the Court (e.g., Diesel Construction Co. v. Jollibee Foods Corp., and prior contempt and procedural rule decisions).

Facts Found at Trial and Evidentiary Points

Trial evidence showed execution of a multi‑page MOA bearing signatures of SJMMPI incorporators on page three, payments by Pulumbarit totaling between P400,000.00 and P700,000.00, and an NBI questioned document report observing a different typewriter for page two though without categorical findings of substitution or spuriousness. Plaintiffs alleged falsification of the MOA and maintained the agreement was a management contract with option to buy; defendant asserted a stock‑sale transaction supported by the signed MOA and denied any duty to render accounting as owner.

Issues Raised in the Consolidated Petitions

The consolidated petitions presented six principal questions: (1) whether Pascual et al.’s motion for execution pending appeal in CA‑G.R. CV No. 69931, filed despite the pendency of CA‑G.R. SP No. 61873, constituted forum‑shopping; (2) whether consolidation of the CA cases violated CA internal rules and denied due process; (3) whether filing the motion for execution pending appeal rendered CA‑G.R. SP No. 61873 moot and academic; (4) whether the CA properly granted the motion for execution pending appeal; (5) whether findings in the receivership application constituted res judicata on the true nature of the parties’ agreement; and (6) whether the agreement was a sale, a management contract with option to buy, or a contract to sell shares.

Forum‑Shopping and Abuse of Process

The Court held Pascual et al. did not commit forum‑shopping in the strict legal sense because the motions involved provisional reliefs and did not create identity of causes of action or reliefs that would produce res judicata between the two CA dockets. Nonetheless, the Court condemned Pascual et al.’s timing and conduct—filing a motion for execution in CA‑G.R. CV No. 69931 after the CA already issued TRO and preliminary injunction in CA‑G.R. SP No. 61873—characterizing the filing as an improper attempt to undermine the earlier injunctive relief and an abuse of court processes comparable in principle to prior contempt determinations where repetitive motions were used to delay satisfaction of a final judgment.

Consolidation and Due Process

The Court found consolidation of the CA dockets proper and not violative of Pulumbarit’s right to due process. The Court explained that internal CA rules (RIRCA) govern internal operations and do not create vested procedural rights enforceable by litigants to selection of a particular panel or justice. The record showed Pulumbarit was afforded full opportunity to be heard (pleadings, oral arguments, motion practice), including the issuance of injunctive reliefs in his favor; hence no denial of due process resulted from the CA’s consolidation or raffle procedures.

Mootness and the Separate Nature of the CA Proceedings

The Court reversed the CA’s conclusion that CA‑G.R. SP No. 61873 became moot and academic by reason of the filing of the motion for execution pending appeal in CA‑G.R. CV No. 69931. It emphasized that a petition alleging grave abuse of discretion (SP docket) and a motion seeking discretionary execution (CV docket) present distinct, albeit related, issues; actions on execution pending appeal are provisional and without prejudice to the court’s final disposition. Consequently, the filing of the motion could not extinguish the separate CA petition challenging the trial court’s grant of execution pending appeal.

Discretionary Execution: Legal Standard and Application

Applying Rule 30, Section 2 and precedent (notably Diesel Construction), the Court reiterated that discretionary execution pending appeal requires “good reasons” — superior, exceptional, and urgent circumstances outweighing potential injury to the appealing party should the judgment be reversed. The CA’s stated grounds for allowing execution (to prevent Pulumbarit from receiving further sale proceeds and to avert distraint and public auction) were deemed insufficient. The Court noted the lack of urgency given Pulumbarit’s long possession of the park, the existence of alternative remedies (e.g., receivership, loans), and the general policy favoring enforcement only of final and executory judgments; accordingly, the CA erred in upholding execution pending appeal on the cited reasons.

Res Judicata and the Receivership Application

The Court held that findings in the receivership application did not operate as res judicata as to the nature of the parties’ agreement. The receivership petition was ancillary and provisional within the main Civil Case No. 7250‑M; hence determi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 153745-46)

Procedural Posture and Dockets

Two petitions were consolidated before the Supreme Court:
- G.R. Nos. 153745-46: Petition for Review on Certiorari with Petition for Certiorari filed by Nemencio C. Pulumbarit seeking annulment and setting aside of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution dated May 30, 2002 in consolidated CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 and CA-G.R. CV No. 69931.
- G.R. No. 166573: Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Lourdes S. Pascual, Leonila F. Acasio, and San Juan Macias Memorial Park, Inc. (Pascual et al.) seeking review of the CA Decision dated September 28, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 which reversed the trial court and ruled the agreement between the parties was a sale.
Case below: Civil Case No. 7250-M before Branch XX, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan.
Court of Appeals involvement:
- CA-G.R. SP No. 61873: Pulumbarit's petition for certiorari to nullify writs of execution and injunction issued by the RTC; TRO and writ of preliminary injunction issued by CA.
- CA-G.R. CV No. 69931: Pulumbarit's appeal from the RTC Decision.
- These CA matters were ordered consolidated on November 5, 2001.
Supreme Court disposition:
- G.R. Nos. 153745-46: GRANTED — CA Resolution dated May 30, 2002 ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
- G.R. No. 166573: DENIED for lack of merit; CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 AFFIRMED with modification that the agreement is a contract to sell SJMMPI shares (not a contract of sale nor a management contract with option to buy).
Decision announced October 14, 2015; judgment notice received October 23, 2015.
Opinion by J. Jardeleza; concurrence by Peralta (Acting Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Perez, and Mendoza JJ.; Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recused.

Factual Background

In 1982 SJMMPI, through President Lourdes S. Pascual, authorized Atty. Soledad de Jesus to find a buyer for San Juan Memorial Park for P1,500,000.00.
Pascual, Leonila F. Acasio (SJMMPI Secretary-Treasurer), other officers/stockholders, and Nemencio Pulumbarit entered into an agreement.
Pulumbarit issued eighteen (18) checks in the name of SJMMPI Secretary-Treasurer Leonila Acasio.
Pulumbarit and/or his lawyer prepared the written agreement (MOA) and obtained signatures of concerned parties.
On June 13, 1983, Pascual et al. requested a copy of the written agreement and asked Pulumbarit to reissue replacement checks because the original checks were payable to Acasio, who had since resigned.
Pulumbarit allegedly failed to comply with requests and disputes arose about the nature and authenticity of the MOA and the parties’ actual agreement.

Trial Court Proceedings and Relief Sought by Plaintiffs (Pascual et al.)

Plaintiffs filed Complaint for Rescission of Contract, Damages and Accounting with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Receivership (Civil Case No. 7250-M).
Plaintiffs alleged the parties entered into a management contract with option to buy, with Pulumbarit agreeing to pay P750,000.00 in installments; failure to pay would cancel the contract and forfeit payments and possession.
Plaintiffs alleged breaches by Pulumbarit, including refusal to reissue checks, destruction of original fence, annexation of adjacent lots, unauthorized use of SJMMPI permit and operating under the name "Infinito Memorial Park" without consent or clearances.
Plaintiffs sought rescission of the agreement, forfeiture of sums paid, accounting, injunctive relief, and other remedies.
Pulumbarit initially filed a Motion to Dismiss, attaching a copy of the MOA (alleging a sale of all paid-up stocks of SJMMPI to him for P750,000.00 payable in installments).
Plaintiffs amended complaint alleging Pulumbarit falsified the agreement; they claimed the MOA did not reflect the true terms and that it was a nullity.
Plaintiffs moved to declare Pulumbarit in default pending resolution of his Motion to Dismiss; trial court granted and allowed plaintiffs’ ex parte presentation, resulting in a default judgment (September 5, 1984), later reversed by the CA (January 15, 1989) and remanded for Pulumbarit’s evidence.
Plaintiffs applied for receivership to take possession during litigation; the trial court denied receivership by Order dated October 10, 1991.
After reversal of default judgment, Pulumbarit’s Answer denied a management offer and asserted a sale of SJMMPI shares; he contended as sole owner he had no obligation to render accounting.
Plaintiffs presented NBI Document Examiner Eliodoro Constantino who testified page two of the MOA was typed from a different typewriter than pages one, three and four.

Trial Court Decision (July 15, 2000)

RTC ruled in favor of Pascual et al., with dispositive relief:
- Declared the MOA null and void.
- Rescinded the management contract and declared it of no force and effect.
- Directed Pulumbarit to render accounting from 1982 to date of decision.
- Ordered Pulumbarit to pay SJMMPI P100,000.00 as actual damages and P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses.
- Ordered Pulumbarit and those acting for him to cease operating and engaging in business of SJMMPI (including Infinito Memorial Park), and to surrender all documents, papers, deeds, accounts and sums of money relating to the corporation.
Pulumbarit filed Notice of Appeal (August 19, 2000); appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69931.

Motions for Execution Pending Appeal and Related RTC Orders

Before records transmitted to CA, plaintiffs filed motions with trial court for (1) writ of injunction against Pulumbarit and (2) execution of the RTC decision pending appeal.
Trial court granted these motions on September 13, 2000 pursuant to Section 4, Rule 39, Rules of Court (judgments in certain actions may be immediately executory and not stayed by appeal unless otherwise ordered).
Pulumbarit’s motion for reconsideration of discretionary execution was denied (October 3, 2000).
Pulumbarit filed petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 61873) to nullify the writs of execution and injunction, with prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction; case led to TRO and writ of preliminary injunction issued by CA (TRO January 26, 2001; preliminary injunction March 28, 2001).

Proceedings and Orders at the Court of Appeals

Despite CA’s injunctive writs, plaintiffs filed motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 (May 11, 2001) seeking execution of RTC decision pending Pulumbarit’s appeal.
CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 and CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 were consolidated November 5, 2001.
CA in its Resolution of May 30, 2002 granted plaintiffs’ motion for execution pending appeal and dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 as moot and academic.
Pulumbarit filed Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (with Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65) challenging CA’s May 30, 2002 Resolution; this became G.R. Nos. 153745-46.
After filing with Supreme Court, CA suspended its May 30, 2002 Resolution (September 11, 2002).
CA issued Decision on September 28, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 reversing the trial court’s ruling and concluding the agreement was a sale.
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision (October 19, 2004) denied January 12, 2005; plaintiffs filed petition to review CA Decision leading to G.R. No. 166573.
Supreme Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 153745-46 with G.R. No. 166573 by Resolution dated February 7, 2007.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether plaintiffs’ filing of the Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931, despite knowledge of CA-G.R. SP No. 61873, amounted to forum shopping.
Whether consolidation of CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 with CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 violated CA internal rules (RIRCA) and infringed Pulumbarit’s right to due process.
Whether filing the motion for execution pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 rendered CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 moot and academic.
Whether CA’s grant of motion for execution pending appeal was proper.
Whether the factual finding in the receivership application had res judicata effect on the true agreement between parties.
Whether the agreement between the parties was a sale, a contract to sell, or a management contract with option to buy.

Supreme Court Rulings — Overview

The Court resolved each issue and rendered the following principal rulings:
- Pascual et al.’s conduct in filing the motion for execution pending appeal was an abuse of court processes but did not meet the strict elements of forum shopping.
- Consolidation of the CA cases was proper and did not violate Pulumbarit’s due process rights; alleged RIRCA violations did not establish an actionable wrong.
- CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 was not rendered moot and academic by the motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931; CA erred in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 61873.
- Reasons given by the CA to justify execution pending appeal were insufficient; CA’s grant of execution pending appeal was erroneous.
- The factual finding in the receivership application did not operate as res judicata on the substantive issue of the true agreement.
- The parties’ agreement was not a management contract with option to buy nor a completed contract of sale; it was a contract to sell the shares of SJMMPI.

Forum Shopping and Abuse of Court Process

Court’s findings:
- Forum shopping, in its strict sense, requires elements of litis pendentia or identity of parties, rights, causes of action, and reliefs such that a final judgment in one case would be res judicata in another.
- Pascual et al.’s filing of a motion for execution pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 wa
...continue reading