G.R. No. L-24703 - Velez vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24703)

Factual Background

Magin Velez and Lucy Velez instituted Civil Case No. 7950 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for rescission of a deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage executed in favor of Uldarico Bacay. The trial court rendered judgment on February 25, 1965, rescinding the sale, ordering restitution of possession, and directing certain money payments; cross-claims by the Social Security System and the Home Financing Commission against Bacay were dismissed. Bacay received a copy of the decision on March 2, 1965, and filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 1965.

Trial Court Proceedings After Judgment

A record on appeal was prepared and, upon Bacay's request, set for consideration on April 15, 1965; however, the Court of First Instance disapproved the record on appeal on May 12, 1965, on the ground that the appeal bond had been filed only on April 26, 1965, and thus was out of time. Bacay's motion for reconsideration was denied. Upon motion of the petitioners, the trial court ordered execution on May 18, 1965, and issued the corresponding writ on May 25, 1965. Bacay moved to quash the writ and was denied; on June 4, 1965, the trial court ordered Bacay to vacate and deliver possession within five days under pain of contempt.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

While proceedings in the trial court continued, Bacay filed a petition for relief from the May 12 order on June 1, 1965, and on June 8, 1965, he instituted a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the June 4 order, to stay execution, and to enjoin disturbance of his possession. Although the petition for relief had been denied in an order dated June 7, 1965 — of which Bacay had not yet been notified — the sheriff implemented the writ of execution on June 9, 1965 at 1:45 p.m., delivering possession to the Velez spouses. Later on June 9, 1965 the Court of Appeals gave due course to Bacay’s petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction ex parte, notifying the trial judge and the sheriff that evening.

Contention and Interim Orders in the Court of Appeals

The petitioners offered to post a counterbond to lift the writ of preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals denied the offer on June 14, 1965. On June 23, 1965 the Court of Appeals directed Provincial Sheriff Vicente Miranda to maintain Bacay’s possession and to oust the respondents, and it required the city sheriff and the Velez spouses to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. The provincial sheriff reported on June 25, 1965 that enforcement was impossible because the petitioners refused to vacate and had locked the house.

Motion to Disqualify and Contempt Proceedings

On July 1, 1965 the Velez spouses filed an answer denying the material allegations of Bacay’s petition and asserted, as a defense, that Bacay had not exhausted trial-court remedies. On the same date they moved that Justice Edmundo S. Piccio disqualify himself, alleging private interviews between him and Bacay’s wife; the records do not show an express resolution of that motion. On July 14, 1965 the Court of Appeals ordered the arrest and confinement of Magin and Lucy Velez in the provincial jail until they relinquished possession; the order was carried out and the petitioners were incarcerated.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Relief Sought

On July 16, 1965 the petitioners filed a special civil action in the Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directed against the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and the provincial sheriff’s actions. The petition sought annulling the Court of Appeals’ orders, setting aside the contempt citation and arrest order, and releasing the petitioners. This Court issued an interim restraining order on July 20, 1965 enjoining implementation of the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and ordered the petitioners’ release on July 22, 1965 upon posting of a bond of P1,000.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition raised three principal issues: first, whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to Bacay’s petition for certiorari and prohibition; second, whether Justice Edmundo S. Piccio should have been disqualified and whether the Court of Appeals erred in proceeding without resolving the disqualification motion; and third, whether the petitioners were properly adjudged in contempt for disobeying the writ of preliminary injunction and the Court of Appeals’ order of June 23, 1965.

Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction and Availability of Remedies

The Court held that the questions whether the trial court’s decision had become final or whether Bacay had adequate remedies at law — notably stay of execution upon bond under Rule 39, Section 2 and appeal from the order denying his petition for relief — were precisely the questions the Court of Appeals should decide in the first instance. The Supreme Court declined to preempt the appellate court’s authority by resolving those issues in the special civil action. The Court therefore concluded that it could not say the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in giving due course to the petition, because to do so would be to decide questions squarely presented to the Court of Appeals.

Court’s Analysis on Disqualification of Justice Piccio

The Supreme Court observed that when Justice Piccio later participated and acted, the motion to disqualify was, in effect, denied. The alleged ground for disqualification — an indirect imputation of partiality based on private interviews — was not among the grounds enumerated in the first paragraph of Rule 137, Section 1; hence a litigant could not disqualify a judge on that basis. The Court further noted that the issue became moot insofar as further appellate proceedings were

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24703)

Parties and Posture

The petitioners were Magin Velez and Lucy Velez, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7950 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The primary respondent in the trial court action was Uldarico Bacay, with the Social Security System and the Home Financing Commission as co-defendants.
The appellate and special-relief respondent was the Court of Appeals sitting as its Special Fifth Division composed of the justices named in the title.
The provincial enforcement respondent named in the petition was Vicente Miranda, Provincial Sheriff of Cebu.
The Supreme Court decision was rendered by Makalintal, J., with concurrence by the justices listed in the opinion.

Key Facts

The petitioners executed a deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage in favor of Bacay on January 15, 1962.
The petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 7950 for rescission of the sale against Bacay, the Social Security System, and the Home Financing Commission.
The trial court rendered judgment on February 25, 1965 rescinding the sale, ordering payments by Bacay, and ordering restoration of possession to the petitioners.
Bacay received a copy of the decision on March 2, 1965 and filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on March 31, 1965.
The trial court disapproved the record on appeal on May 12, 1965 on the ground that the appeal bond, filed April 26, 1965, was out of time.
The trial court, upon motion of the petitioners, ordered execution on May 18, 1965 and issued the writ on May 25, 1965.
The city sheriff delivered possession to the petitioners on June 9, 1965 at 1:45 p.m. before the Court of Appeals issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction later that day.
The Court of Appeals issued an order on June 23, 1965 directing the provincial sheriff to maintain Bacay's possession and to oust the respondents, and later ordered the arrest and confinement of the petitioners on July 14, 1965 for contempt.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court declared the sale resolved and rescinded by its February 25, 1965 judgment and dismissed cross-claims of the co-defendants.
The trial court disapproved Bacay's record on appeal on May 12, 1965 because the appeal bond was filed late.
The trial court ordered execution on May 18, 1965 and issued the corresponding writ on May 25, 1965.
The trial court denied Bacay's motion to quash the writ of execution and on June 4, 1965 ordered Bacay to vacate and deliver possession to the petitioners within five days under pain of contempt.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Bacay filed a petition for relief from the May 12, 1965 order and a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals on June 8, 1965.
The Court of Appeals gave due course to Bacay's petition and issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction on June 9, 1965 after execution had been implemented.
The petitioners offered a counterbond to lift the injunc