Title
Supreme Court
Pulumbarit, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 153745-46
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2015
Dispute over SJMMPI sale agreement: Pascual et al. claimed management contract, Pulumbarit argued sale. SC ruled contract to sell, annulled CA resolution, denied execution pending appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127139)

Applicable Law

The decision is primarily governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, given that it was issued in 2015.

Facts and Case Antecedents

In 1982, San Juan Macias Memorial Park, Inc. (SJMMPI), led by Lourdes S. Pascual, sought a buyer for the Memorial Park. The negotiations ultimately involved Pulumbarit, who issued checks totaling P750,000.00 to the SJMMPI. Various letters requested clarity on a written agreement, with claims of management and options to purchase. Frustrated with delays, Pascual et al. filed a complaint against Pulumbarit, alleging breach of contract and mismanagement.

Proceedings Before the Trial Court

Pascual et al. asserted that they had a management contract with Pulumbarit, while Pulumbarit contested this by claiming a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) indicated a sale of the company's shares. After a default judgment favored Pascual et al., the Court of Appeals overturned this ruling, allowing Pulumbarit to present evidence. During subsequent proceedings, Pulumbarit refuted claims of management and asserted that he had purchased shares.

Trial Court's Decision

In July 2000, the trial court found in favor of Pascual et al., declaring the MOA null, rescinding the management contract, and ordering Pulumbarit to account for his management activities. Pulumbarit appealed and sought to nullify subsequent motions for execution and injunction related to this decision.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals found merit in Pascual et al.'s motions for execution pending appeal. Pulumbarit contested this and sought certiorari, leading to a series of appeals coordinated in two consolidated petitions. The case dealt with issues of forum shopping, procedural compliance, and the nature of the underlying agreement between the parties.

Primary Issues Raised

  1. Whether Pascual et al.'s actions amounted to forum shopping.
  2. The implications of procedural irregularities in the case consolidation.
  3. The validity of the issuance of an execution pending appeal.
  4. The nature of the contractual agreement between the parties.

Ruling of the Court

The Court determined that Pascual et al. had not engaged in forum shopping despite controversy surrounding their motions. The Court rejected claims of improper consolidation, highlighting that procedural rules do not inherently constitute substantive rights. The CA's finding that Pulumbarit’s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.