Cases on Provisional Remedies Sec. 8 Rule 57

Section 8 Provisional Remedies 1

G.R. No. L-34589 June 29, 1988

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

G.R. No. L-34656 June 29, 1988

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, respondents.

FERNAN, J.:

In these related petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Engineering Construction, Inc. [ECI] and the Manila Electric Company [MERALCO] question the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 47528-R which set aside the orders of the trial court directing execution pending appeal of a judgment for P1,108,985.31 in damages in favor of ECI. Petitioners also question the resolution of said court holding them liable for restitution of the garnished funds to the National Power Corporation [NPC].

On August 29, 1968, ECI filed a complaint for damages against the NPC in the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 15, alleging that it suffered damages to its facilities and equipment due to the inundation of its campsite in Ipo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, as a direct result of the improper and careless opening by NPC of the spillway gates of Angat Dam at the height of typhoon "Welming" on November 4,1967. 1

On December 23, 1970, the trial court found NPC guilty of gross negligence and rendered its judgment, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant as follows:

1. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P675,785.31;

2. Ordering defendant to pay consequential damages in the amount of P233,200.00; *

3. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P50,000 as and by way of exemplary damages; and

4. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P50,000 as and for attorney's fees ... 2

NPC filed a notice of appeal from that decision but before it could perfect its appeal, ECI moved for and was granted execution pending appeal upon posting a covering bond of P200,000 which it later increased to P1,109,000 to fully answer for whatever damages NPC might incur by reason of the premature execution of the lower court's decision. 3

In granting said motion for the exceptional writ over the strong opposition of the NPC, the trial court adopted the grounds adduced by movant ECI.

1. x x x.

2. That the substantial portion of the award of damages refers to the actual or compensatory damages incurred by plaintiff, which are supported by voluminous documentary evidence, the genuineness and due execution of which were admitted and further, no evidence whatever was presented to contest the same;

3. That this case has been pending for years, as the plaintiff and the Honorable Court were led to believe that the matter in dispute would be settled amicably;

4. That an appeal by defendant would obviously be for purposes of delay;

5. That on appeal, the case would certainly drag on for many years, and in the meantime, the actual loss and damages sustained by plaintiff, who because of such loss have become heavily obligated and financially distressed, would remain uncompensated and unsatisfied

6. That also, plaintiff is willing and able to file a bond to answer for any damage which defendant may suffer as a result of an execution pending appeal. 4

Subsequently, Deputy Sheriff Restituto R. Quemada who was assigned to enforce the writ of execution, garnished in favor of ECI all amounts due and payable to NPC which were then in possession of MERALCO and sufficient to cover the judgment sum of P1,108,985.31. 5

Attempts to lift the order of execution having proved futile and the offer of a supersedeas bond having been rejected by the lower court, NPC filed with the Appellate Court a petition for certiorari. 6

In its challenged decision of October 20, 1971, the Court of Appeals granted NPCs petition and nullified the execution pending appeal of the judgment rendered by the trial court on December 28, 1970, as well as all issued writs and processes in connection with the execution. One justice dissented. 7

On November 11, 1971, MERALCO sought from the Appellate Court a clarification and reconsideration of the aforesaid decision on the ground, among others, that the decision was being used by NPC to compel MERALCOto return the amount of P1,114,545.23 (inclusive of sheriff's fees) in two checks which it had already entrusted to the deputy sheriff on February 23, 1971, who then indorsed and delivered the same to ECI. Whereupon, in its resolution of January 7, 1972, the Appellate Court held the sheriff, MERALCO and ECI liable to restore to NPC the amount due


to NPC which MERALCO had earlier turned over to the sheriff for payment to ECI. 8

Their two motions for reconsideration having been denied, ECI and MERALCO filed separate petitions for review before this Court: Nos. L-34589 and 34656, the very petitions before us for adjudication. In this connection, it must be made clear that we are not concemed with the main appeal. For the present, we limit our discussion to the correctness of the extraordinary writ of execution pending appeal and the ordered restitution of the garnished funds---two collateral matters which have greatly exacerbated the existing dispute between the parties.

We shall deal first with the propriety of the execution pending appeal.

Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

Execution pending appeal. On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party the court may, in its discretion, order execution to issue even before the expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. If a record on appeal is filed thereafter, the motion and the special order shall be included thereon.

While the rule gives the court the discretionary power to allow immediate execution, the following requisites must be satisfied for its valid exercise:

(a) There must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;

(b) There must be a good reasons for issuing the execution; and

(c) The good reasons must be stated in a special order.

In its assailed decision, the Appellate Court, through Justice Salvador V. Esguerra, observe that NPC, as defendant in the civil case for damages, was being ordered to pay the amount of P 1,108,985.31 pending appeal when practically 40% thereof was made up of awards of damages based on the court's sole and untrammeled discretion. Such amount might greatly be reduced by the superior court, especially the items for consequential and exemplary damages and attorney's fees which by themselves would amount to the "staggering" sum of P433,220.00

The Appellate Court noted the many instances when on review, the amounts for attorney's fees and exemplary and moral damages were drastically cut or eliminated altogether in the absence of proof that the losing party acted with malice, evident bad faith or in an oppressive manner.

Inasmuch as the list submitted by ECI of the estimated losses and damages to its tunnel project caused by the instant flooding on November 4, 1967 was duly supported by vouchers presented in evidence, and considering that NPC, for its part, failed to submit proofs to refute or contradict such documentary evidence, we are

constrained to sustain the order of execution pending appeal by the trial court but only as far as the award for actual or compensatory damages is concemed. We are not prepared to disagree with the lower court on this point since it was not sufficiently shown that it abused or exceeded its authority.

With respect to the consequential and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees, however, we concur with the Appellate Court in holding that the lower court had exceeded the limits of its discretion. Execution should have been postponed until such time as the merits of the case have been finally determined in the regular appeal.

In the fairly recent case of RCPI, et al vs. Lantin Nos. L-59311 and 59320, January 31, 1985 , 134 SCRA 395, 400-401, the Court said:

The execution of any award for moral and exemplary damages is dependent on the outcome of the main case. Unlike actual damages for which the petitioners may clearly be held liable if they breach a specific contract and the amounts of which are fixed and certain, liabilities with respect to moral and exemplary damages as well as the exact amounts remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution by the Intermediate Appellate Court and eventually the Supreme Court. The existence of the factual bases of these types of damages and their casual relation to petitioners' act will have to be determined in the light of the assignments or errors on appeal. It is possible that the petitioners, after all, while liable for actual damages may not be liable for moral and exemplary damages. Or as in some cases elevated to the Supreme Court, the awards may be reduced.

Indeed, as later events would show, the Appellate Court was proven right when it postulated that it is not beyond the realm of probability that NPCs appeal from the lower court's judgment could result in the substantial reduction of the consequential damages and attorney's fees and the deletion of exemplary damages.

We take judicial notice of the fact that on August 24, 1987, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on the main appeal. 9 It affirmed the trial court's conclusion that NPC was guilty of negligence but differred in the award of damages. While it upheld the court a quo's award of P675,785.31 as actual damages, it reduced the consequential damages from P333,200.00 to P19,200.00 and the attorney's fees from P50,000 to P30,000.00 The grant of P50,000 as exemplary damages was eliminated. Altogether, the award of damages was modified from P1,108,985.31 to P724,985.31. From that decision, both the ECI and NPC filed their separate appeals to this Court. 10 Finally, on May 16, 1988, the Court promulgated its


judgment affirming in all respects the Appellate Court's decision in CA-G.R. No. 49955-R, thus putting to rest the question of negligence and NPCs liability for damages.

The point that the Court wishes to emphasize is this: Courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired a final character. Section 2, Rule 39, authorizing the premature execution of judgments, being an exception to the general rule, must be restrictively construed. It would not be a sound rule to allow indiscriminately the execution of a money judgment, even if there is a sufficient bond. "The reasons allowing execution must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment."' 11

We come now to the second issue of whether petitioners, including the sheriff, are bound to restore to NPC the judgment amount which has been delivered to ECI in compliance with the writ of garnishment.

In line with our pronouncement that we are sanctioning in this particular instance the execution pending appeal of actual but not consequential and exemplary damages and attorney's fees which must necessarily depend on the final resolution of the main cases, i.e., Nos. L-47379 and 47481, the direct consequence would be to authorizeNPC to proceed against the covering bond filed by ECI but only to the extent of the difference between the amount finally adjudicated by this Court in the main cases [P724,985.31] and the amount originally decreed by the trial court relating to the consequential and exemplary damages and attorney's fees [P1,108.985.31]. In other words,ECIs bond is held answerable to NPC for P384,000.

But while partial restitution is warranted in favor of NPC, we find that the Appellate Court erred in not absolvingMERALCO, the garnishee, from its obligations to NPC with respect to the payment to ECI of P1,114,543.23, thus in effect subjecting MERALCO to double liability. MERALCO should not have been faulted for its prompt obedience to a writ of garnishment. Unless there are compelling reasons such as: a defect on the face of the writ or actual knowledge on the part of the garnishee of lack of entitlement on the part of the garnisher, it is not incumbent upon the garnishee to inquire or to judge for itself whether or not the order for the advance execution of a judgment is valid.

Section 8, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides,

Effect of attachment of debts and credits.-All persons having in their possession or under their control any credits or other similar personal property belonging to the party against whom attachment is issued, or owing any debts to the same, at the time of service upon them of a copy of the order of attachment and notice as provided in the last preceding section, shall be liable to the applicant for the amount of such credits, debts or other property, until the attachment be discharged, or any judgment recovered by him be satisfied, unless such property be delivered or transferred, or such debts be paid, to the

clerk, sheriff or other proper officer of the court issuing the attachment.

Garnishment is considered as a specie of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to the litigation. Under the above-cited rule, the garnishee [the third person] is obliged to deliver the credits, etc. to the proper officer issuing the writ and "the law exempts from liability the person having in his possession or under his control any credits or other personal property be, longing to the defendant, ..., if such property be delivered or transferred, ..., to the clerk, sheriff, or other officer of the court in which the action is pending." 12

Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, MERALCO, as garnishee, after having been judicially compelled to pay the amount of the judgment represented by funds in its possession belonging to the judgment debtor or NPC, should be released from all responsibilities over such amount after delivery thereof to the sheriff. The reason for the rule is self-evident. To expose garnishees to risks for obeying court orders and processes would only undermine the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, the Court in disposing of the two side issues of execution pending appeal and petitioners' liability for restitution, hereby MODIFIES the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution under review, and rules as follows:

[a] NPC is authorized to proceed against the P1,109,000 bond filed by ECI to the extent of P384,000 which corresponds to the difference between the awards for consequential and exemplary damages and attorney's fees upheld by the Court in the main cases (Nos. L-47379 and 47481) and those decreed for the same items by the trial court;

[b] MERALCO is declared absolved from any and all responsibilities in connection with the amount of P1,114,545.23 representing the NPC garnished funds and therefore relieved from the burden of restoring the same to NPC.

SO ORDERED .


G.R. No. L-34548 November 29, 1988

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE PACIFICO P. DE CASTRO and PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION,respondents

CORTES, J.:

The crux of the instant controversy dwells on the liability of a bank for releasing its depositor's funds upon orders of the court, pursuant to a writ of garnishment. If in compliance with the court order, the bank delivered the garnished amount to the sheriff, who in turn delivered it to the judgment creditor, but subsequently, the order of the court directing payment was set aside by the same judge, should the bank be held solidarily liable with the judgment creditor to its depositor for reimbursement of the garnished funds? The Court does not think so.

In Civil Case No. Q-12785 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX entitled "Badoc Planters, Inc. versus Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, et al.," which was an action for recovery of unpaid tobacco deliveries, an Order (Partial Judgment) was issued on January 15, 1970 by the Hon. Lourdes P. San Diego, then Presiding Judge, ordering the defendants therein to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff Badoc Planters, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "BADOC") within 48 hours the aggregate amount of P206,916.76, with legal interests thereon.

On January 26,1970, BADOC filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for a Writ of Execution of the said Partial Judgment which was granted on the same day by the herein respondent judge who acted in place of the Hon. Judge San Diego who had just been elevated as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Branch Clerk of Court on the very same day, issued a Writ of Execution addressed to Special Sheriff Faustino Rigor, who then issued a Notice of Garnishment addressed to the General Manager and/or Cashier of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (hereinafter referred to as RCBC), the petitioner in this case, requesting a reply within five (5) days to said garnishment as to any property which the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (hereinafter referred to as "PVTA") might have in the possession or control of petitioner or of any debts owing by the petitioner to said defendant. Upon receipt of such Notice, RCBC notified PVTA thereof to enable the PVTA to take the necessary steps for the protection of its own interest [Record on Appeal, p. 36]

Upon an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion dated January 27, 1970 filed by BADOC, the respondent Judge issued an Order granting the Ex-Parte Motion and directing the herein petitioner "to deliver in check the amount garnished to Sheriff Faustino Rigor and Sheriff Rigor in turn is ordered to cash the check and deliver the amount to the plaintiff's representative and/or counsel on record." [Record on Appeal, p. 20; Rollo, p. 5.] In compliance with said Order, petitioner delivered to Sheriff Rigor a certified check in the sum of P 206,916.76.

Respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated February 26,1970 which was granted in an Order dated April 6,1970, setting aside the Orders of Execution and of Payment and the Writ of Execution and ordering petitioner and BADOC "to restore, jointly and severally, the account of PVTA with the said bank in the same condition and state it was before the issuance of

the aforesaid Orders by reimbursing the PVTA of the amount of P 206, 916.76 with interests at the legal rate from January 27, 1970 until fully paid to the account of the PVTA This is without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to move for the execution of the partial judgment pending appeal in case the motion for reconsideration is denied and appeal is taken from the said partial judgment." [Record on Appeal, p. 58]

The Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order of April 6, 1970 filed by herein petitioner was denied in the Order of respondent judge dated June 10, 1970 and on June 19, 1970, which was within the period for perfecting an appeal, the herein petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from the said Orders.

This case was then certified by the Court of Appeals to this Honorable Court, involving as it does purely questions of law.

The petitioner raises two principal queries in the instant case: 1) Whether or not PVTA funds are public funds not subject to garnishment; and 2) Whether or not the respondent Judge correctly ordered the herein petitioner to reimburse the amount paid to the Special Sheriff by virtue of the execution issued pursuant to the Order/Partial Judgment dated January 15, 1970.

The record reveals that on February 2, 1970, private respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order/ Partial Judgment of January 15, 1970. This was granted and the aforementioned Partial Judgment was set aside. The case was set for hearings on November 4, 9 and 11, 1970 [Rollo, pp. 205-207.] However, in view of the failure of plaintiff BADOC to appear on the said dates, the lower court ordered the dismissal of the case against PVTA for failure to prosecute [Rollo, p. 208.]

It must be noted that the Order of respondent Judge dated April 6, 1970 directing the plaintiff to reimburse PVTA t e amount of P206,916.76 with interests became final as to said plaintiff who failed to even file a motion for reconsideration, much less to appeal from the said Order. Consequently, the order to restore the account of PVTA with RCBC in the same condition and state it was before the issuance of the questioned orders must be upheld as to the plaintiff, BADOC.

However, the questioned Order of April 6, 1970 must be set aside insofar as it ordered the petitioner RCBC, jointly and severally with BADOC, to reimburse PVTA.

The petitioner merely obeyed a mandatory directive from the respondent Judge dated January 27, 1970, ordering petitioner 94 "to deliver in check the amount garnished to Sheriff Faustino Rigor and Sheriff Rigor is in turn ordered to cash the check and deliver the amount to the plaintiffs representative and/or counsel on record." [Record on Appeal, p. 20.]

PVTA however claims that the manner in which the bank complied with the Sheriffs Notice of Garnishment indicated breach of trust and dereliction of duty on the part of the bank as custodian of government funds. It insistently urges that the premature delivery of the garnished amount by RCBC to the special sheriff even in the absence of a demand to deliver made by the latter, before the expiration of the five-day period given to reply to the Notice of Garnishment, without any reply having been given thereto nor any prior authorization from its


depositor, PVTA and even if the court's order of January 27, 1970 did not require the bank to immediately deliver the garnished amount constitutes such lack of prudence as to make it answerable jointly and severally with the plaintiff for the wrongful release of the money from the deposit of the PVTA. The respondent Judge in his controverted Order sustained such contention and blamed RCBC for the supposed "hasty release of the amount from the deposit of the PVTA without giving PVTA a chance to take proper steps by informing it of the action being taken against its deposit, thereby observing with prudence the five-day period given to it by the sheriff." [Rollo, p. 81.]

Such allegations must be rejected for lack of merit. In the first place, it should be pointed out that RCBC did not deliver the amount on the strength solely of a Notice of Garnishment; rather, the release of the funds was made pursuant to the aforesaid Order of January 27, 1970. While the Notice of Garnishment dated January 26, 1970 contained no demand of payment as it was a mere request for petitioner to withold any funds of the PVTA then in its possession, the Order of January 27, 1970 categorically required the delivery in check of the amount garnished to the special sheriff, Faustino Rigor.

In the second place, the bank had already filed a reply to the Notice of Garnishment stating that it had in its custody funds belonging to the PVTA, which, in fact was the basis of the plaintiff in filing a motion to secure delivery of the garnished amount to the sheriff. [See Rollo, p. 93.]

Lastly, the bank, upon the receipt of the Notice of Garnishment, duly informed PVTA thereof to enable the latter to take the necessary steps for the protection of its own interest [Record on Appeal, p. 36]

It is important to stress, at this juncture, that there was nothing irregular in the delivery of the funds of PVTA by check to the sheriff, whose custody is equivalent to the custody of the court, he being a court officer. The order of the court dated January 27, 1970 was composed of two parts, requiring: 1) RCBC to deliver in check the amount garnished to the designated sheriff and 2) the sheriff in turn to cash the check and deliver the amount to the plaintiffs representative and/or counsel on record. It must be noted that in delivering the garnished amount in check to the sheriff, the RCBC did not thereby make any payment, for the law mandates that delivery of a check does not produce the effect of payment until it has been cashed. [Article 1249, Civil Code.]

Moreover, by virtue of the order of garnishment, the same was placed in custodia legis and therefore, from that time on, RCBC was holding the funds subject to the orders of the court a quo. That the sheriff, upon delivery of the check to him by RCBC encashed it and turned over the proceeds thereof to the plaintiff was no longer the concern of RCBC as the responsibility over the garnished funds passed to the court. Thus, no breach of trust or dereliction of duty can be attributed to RCBC in delivering its depositor's funds pursuant to a court order which was merely in the exercise of its power of control over such funds.

... The garnishment of property to satisfy a writ of execution operates as an attachment and fastens upon the property a lien by which the property is brought under the jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ. It is brought into custodia legis, under the sole control of

such court [De Leon v. Salvador, G.R. Nos. L-30871 and L-31603, December 28,1970, 36 SCRA 567, 574.]

The respondent judge however, censured the petitioner for having released the funds "simply on the strength of the Order of the court which. far from ordering an immediate release of the amount involved, merely serves as a standing authority to make the release at the proper time as prescribed by the rules." [Rollo, p. 81.]

This argument deserves no serious consideration. As stated earlier, the order directing the bank to deliver the amount to the sheriff was distinct and separate from the order directing the sheriff to encash the said check. The bank had no choice but to comply with the order demanding delivery of the garnished amount in check. The very tenor of the order called for immediate compliance therewith. On the other hand, the bank cannot be held liable for the subsequent encashment of the check as this was upon order of the court in the exercise of its power of control over the funds placed in custodia legis by virtue of the garnishment.

In a recent decision [Engineering Construction Inc., v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. L-34589, June 29, 1988] penned by the now Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan, this Court absolved a garnishee from any liability for prompt compliance with its order for the delivery of the garnished funds. The rationale behind such ruling deserves emphasis in the present case:

But while partial restitution is warranted in favor of NPC, we find that the Appellate Court erred in not absolving MERALCO, the garnishee, from its obligations to NPC with respect to the payment of ECI of P 1,114,543.23, thus in effect subjecting MERALCO to double liability. MERALCO should not have been faulted for its prompt obedience to a writ of garnishment. Unless there are compelling reasons such as: a defect on the face of the writ or actual knowledge on the part of the garnishee of lack of entitlement on the part of the garnisher, it is not incumbent upon the garnishee to inquire or to judge for itself whether or not the order for the advance execution of a judgment is valid.

Section 8, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides:

Effect of attachment of debts and credits.All persons having in their possession or under their control any credits or other similar personal property belonging to the party against whom attachment is issued, or owing any debts to the same, all the time of service upon them of a copy of the order of attachment and notice as provided in the last preceding section,


shall be liable to the applicant for the amount of such credits, debts or other property, until the attachment be discharged, or any judgment recovered by him be satisfied, unless such property be delivered or transferred, or such debts be paid, to the clerk, sheriff or other proper officer of the court issuing the attachment.

Garnishment is considered as a specie of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to the litigation. Under the above-cited rule, the garnishee [the third person] is obliged to deliver the credits, etc. to the proper officer issuing the writ and "the law exempts from liability the person having in his possession or under his control any credits or other personal property belonging to the defendant, ..., if such property be delivered or transferred, ..., to the clerk, sheriff, or other officer of the court in which the action is pending. [3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court 34 (1970 ed.)]

Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, MERALCO, as garnishee, after having been judicially compelled to pay the amount of the judgment represented by funds in its possession belonging to the judgment debtor or NPC, should be released from all responsibilities over such amount after delivery thereof to the sheriff. The reason for the rule is self-evident. To expose garnishees to risks for obeying court orders and processes would only undermine the administration of justice. [Emphasis supplied.]

The aforequoted ruling thus bolsters RCBC's stand that its immediate compliance with the lower court's order should not have been met with the harsh penalty of joint and several liability. Nor can its liability to reimburse PVTA of the amount delivered in check be premised upon the subsequent declaration of nullity of the order of delivery. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner:

xxx xxx xxx

That the respondent Judge, after his Order was enforced, saw fit to recall said Order and decree its nullity, should not prejudice one who dutifully abided by it, the presumption being that judicial orders are valid and issued in the regular performance of the duties of the Court" [Section 5(m) Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court]. This should operate with greater force in relation to the herein petitioner which, not being a party in the case, was just called upon to perform an act in accordance with a judicial flat. A contrary view will invite disrespect for the majesty of the law and induce reluctance in complying with judicial orders out of fear that said orders might be

subsequently invalidated and thereby expose one to suffer some penalty or prejudice for obeying the same. And this is what will happen were the controversial orders to be sustained. We need not underscore the danger of this as a precedent.

xxx xxx xxx

[ Brief for the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 212; Emphasis supplied.]

From the foregoing, it may be concluded that the charge of breach of trust and/or dereliction of duty as well as lack of prudence in effecting the immediate payment of the garnished amount is totally unfounded. Upon receipt of the Notice of Garnishment, RCBC duly informed PVTA thereof to enable the latter to take the necessary steps for its protection. However, right on the very next day after its receipt of such notice, RCBC was already served with the Order requiring delivery of the garnished amount. Confronted as it was with a mandatory directive, disobedience to which exposed it to a contempt order, it had no choice but to comply.

The respondent Judge nevertheless held that the liability of RCBC for the reimbursement of the garnished amount is predicated on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Highways v. Hon. San Diego [G.R. No. L-30098, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 616] which he found practically on all fours with the case at bar.

The Court disagrees.

The said case which reiterated the rule in Republic v. Palacio [G.R. No. L-20322, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 899] that government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment is definitely distinguishable from the case at bar.

In the Commissioner of Public Highways case [supra], the bank which precipitately allowed the garnishment and delivery of the funds failed to inform its depositor thereof, charged as it was with knowledge of the nullity of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment against government funds. In the aforementioned case, the funds involved belonged to the Bureau of Public Highways, which being an arm of the executive branch of the government, has no personality of its own separate from the National Government. The funds involved were government fundscovered by the rule on exemption from execution.

This brings us to the first issue raised by the petitioner: Are the PVTA funds public funds exempt from garnishment? The Court holds that they are not.

Republic Act No. 2265 created the PVTA as an ordinary corporation with all the attributes of a corporate entity subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law. Hence, it possesses the power "to sue and be sued" and "to acquire and hold such assets and incur such liabilities resulting directly from operations authorized by the provisions of this Act or as essential to the proper conduct of such operations." [Section 3, Republic Act No. 2265.]


Among the specific powers vested in the PVTA are: 1) to buy Virginia tobacco grown in the Philippines for resale to local bona fide tobacco manufacturers and leaf tobacco dealers [Section 4(b), R.A. No. 2265]; 2) to contracts of any kind as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of its purpose with any person, firm or corporation, with the Government of the Philippines or with any foreign government, subject to existing laws [Section 4(h), R.A. No. 22651; and 3) generally, to exercise all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act [Section 4(k), R.A. No. 2265.]

From the foregoing, it is clear that PVTA has been endowed with a personality distinct and separate from the government which owns and controls it. Accordingly, this Court has heretofore declared that the funds of the PVTA can be garnished since "funds of public corporation which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment" [Philippine National Bank v. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112, June 15, 1978, 83 SCRA 595, 598.]

In National Shipyards and Steel Corp. v. CIR [G.R. No. L-17874, August 31, 1964, 8 SCRA 781], this Court held that the allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government and that as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon is untenable for, as a government-owned or controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the government. This court has likewise ruled that other govemment-owned and controlled corporations like National Coal Company, the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), the National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) and the Price Stabilization Council (PRISCO) which possess attributes similar to those of the PVTA are clothed with personalities of their own, separate and distinct from that of the government [National Coal Company v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil. 583 (1924); Bacani and Matoto v. National Coconut Corporation et al., 100 Phil. 471 (1956); Reotan v. National Rice & Corn Corporation, G.R. No. L-16223, February 27, 1962, 4 SCRA 418.] The rationale in vesting it with a separate personality is not difficult to find. It is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation [Manila Hotel Employees' Association v. Manila Hotel Co. and CIR, 73 Phil. 734 (1941).]

Accordingly, as emphatically expressed by this Court in a 1978 decision, "garnishment was the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government" inasmuch as "by engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations" [Philippine National Bank v. CIR, G.R No. L-32667, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 314, 319.]

Furthermore, in the case of PVTA, the law has expressly allowed it funds to answer for various obligations, including the one sought to be enforced by plaintiff BADOC in this case (i.e. for unpaid deliveries of tobacco). Republic Act No. 4155, which discounted the erstwhile support given by the Central Bank to PVTA, established in lieu thereof a "Tobacco Fund" to be collected from the proceeds of fifty per centum of the tariff or taxes of

imported leaf tobacco and also fifty per centum of the specific taxes on locally manufactured Virginia type cigarettes.

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4155 provides that this fund shall be expended for the support or payment of:

1. Indebtedness of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration and the former Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration to FACOMAS and farmers and planters regarding Virginia tobacco transactions in previous years;

2. Indebtedness of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration and the former Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration to the Central Bank in gradual amounts regarding Virginia tobacco transactions in previous years;

3. Continuation of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration support and subsidy operationsincluding the purchase of locally grown and produced Virginia leaf tobacco, at the present support and subsidy prices, its procurement, redrying, handling, warehousing and disposal thereof, and the redrying plants trading within the purview of their contracts;

4. Operational, office and field expenses, and the establishment of the Tobacco Research and Grading Institute. [Emphasis supplied.]

Inasmuch as the Tobacco Fund, a special fund, was by law, earmarked specifically to answer obligations incurred by PVTA in connection with its proprietary and commercial operations authorized under the law, it follows that said funds may be proceeded against by ordinary judicial processes such as execution and garnishment. If such funds cannot be executed upon or garnished pursuant to a judgment sustaining the liability of the PVTA to answer for its obligations, then the purpose of the law in creating the PVTA would be defeated. For it was declared to be a national policy, with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the qualities needed and in quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and to create a climate conducive to local cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the consuming public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to improve the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes [Section 1, Republic Act No. 4155.]

The Commissioner of Public Highways case is thus distinguishable from the case at bar. In said case, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as custodian of funds belonging to the Bureau of Public Highways, an agency of the government, was chargeable with knowledge of the exemption of such government funds from execution and garnishment pursuant to the elementary precept that public funds cannot be disbursed without the appropriation required by law. On the other hand, the same cannot hold true for RCBC as the funds entrusted to its custody, which belong to a public corporation, are in the nature of private funds insofar as their susceptibility to garnishment is


concerned. Hence, RCBC cannot be charged with lack of prudence for immediately complying with the order to deliver the garnished amount. Since the funds in its custody are precisely meant for the payment of lawfully-incurred obligations, RCBC cannot rightfully resist a court order to enforce payment of such obligations. That such court order subsequently turned out to have been erroneously issued should not operate to the detriment of one who complied with its clear order.

Finally, it is contended that RCBC was bound to inquire into the legality and propriety of the Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment issued against the funds of the PVTA deposited with said bank. But the bank was in no position to question the legality of the garnishment since it was not even a party to the case. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, it had neither the personality nor the interest to assail or controvert the orders of respondent Judge. It had no choice but to obey the same inasmuch as it had no standing at all to impugn the validity of the partial judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff or of the processes issued in execution of such judgment.

RCBC cannot therefore be compelled to make restitution solidarily with the plaintiff BADOC. Plaintiff BADOC alone was responsible for the issuance of the Writ of Execution and Order of Payment and so, the plaintiff alone should bear the consequences of a subsequent annulment of such court orders; hence, only the plaintiff can be ordered to restore the account of the PVTA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the petitioner is ABSOLVED from any liability to respondent PVTA for reimbursement of the funds garnished. The questioned Order of the respondent Judge ordering the petitioner, jointly and severally with BADOC, to restore the account of PVTA are modified accordingly.

SO ORDERED.


G.R. No. 107282 March 16, 1994

THE MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SPS. OSCAR C. VENTANILLA AND CARMEN GLORIA DIAZ, respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

The present petition is an offshoot of our decision in Manila Remnant Co., Inc., (MRCI) v. Court of Appeals, promulgated on November 22, 1990.

That case involved parcels of land in Quezon City which were owned by petitioner MRCI and became the subject of its agreement with A.U. Valencia and Co., Inc., (AUVCI) by virtue of which the latter was to act as the petitioner's agent in the development and sale of the property. For a stipulated fee, AUVCI was to convert the lands into a subdivision, manage the sale of the lots, execute contracts and issue official receipts to the lot buyers. At the time of the agreement, the president of both MRCI and AUVCI was Artemio U. Valencia.

Pursuant to the above agreement, AUVCI executed two contracts to sell dated March 3, 1970, covering Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, in favor of spouses Oscar C. Ventanilla and Carmen Gloria Diaz for the combined contract price of P66,571.00, payable monthly in ten years. After ten days and without the knowledge of the Ventanilla couple, Valencia, as president of MRCI, resold the same parcels to Carlos Crisostomo, one of his sales agents, without any consideration. Upon orders of Valencia, the monthly payments of the Ventanillas were remitted to the MRCI as payments of Crisostomo, for which receipts were issued in his name. The receipts were kept by Valencia without the knowledge of the Ventanillas and Crisostomo. The Ventanillas continued paying their monthly installments.

On May 30, 1973, MRCI informed AUVCI that it was terminating their agreement because of discrepancies discovered in the latter's collections and remittances. On June 6, 1973, Valencia was removed by the board of directors of MRCI as its president.

On November 21, 1978, the Ventanilla spouses, having learned of the supposed sale of their lots to Crisostomo, commenced an action for specific performance, annulment of deeds, and damages against Manila Remnant Co., Inc., A.U. Valencia and Co., Inc., and Carlos Crisostomo. It was docketed as Civil Case No. 26411 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch 7-B.

On November 17, 1980, the trial court rendered a decision declaring the contracts to sell in favor of the Ventanillas valid and subsisting, and annulling the contract to sell in favor of Crisostomo. It ordered the MRCI to execute an absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas, free from all liens and encumbrances. Damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of P210,000.00 were also awarded to the Ventanillas for which the MRCI, AUVCI, and Crisostomo were held solidarily liable.

The lower court ruled further that if for any reason the transfer of the lots could not be effected, the defendants would be solidarily liable to the Ventanillas for reimbursement of the sum of P73,122.35, representing the amount paid for the two lots, and

legal interest thereon from March 1970, plus the decreed damages and attorney's fees. Valencia was also held liable to MRCI for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

From this decision, separate appeals were filed by Valencia and MRCI. The appellate court, however, sustained the trial court in toto.

MRCI then filed before this Court a petition for certiorari to review the portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the solidary liability of MRCI, AUVCI and Carlos Crisostomo for the payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to the Ventanillas.

On November 22, 1990, this Court affirmed the decision by the Court of Appeals and declared the judgment of the trial court immediately executory.

The Present Case

On January 25, 1991, the spouses Ventanilla filed with the trial court a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 26411. The writ was issued on May 3, 1991, and served upon MRCI on May 9, 1991.

In a manifestation and motion filed by MRCI with the trial court on May 24, 1991, the petitioner alleged that the subject properties could not be delivered to the Ventanillas because they had already been sold to Samuel Marquez on February 7, 1990, while their petition was pending in this Court. Nevertheless, MRCI offered to reimburse the amount paid by the respondents, including legal interest plus the aforestated damages. MRCI also prayed that its tender of payment be accepted and all garnishments on their accounts lifted.

The Ventanillas accepted the amount of P210,000.00 as damages and attorney's fees but opposed the reimbursement offered by MRCI in lieu of the execution of the absolute deed of sale. They contended that the alleged sale to Samuel Marquez was void, fraudulent, and in contempt of court and that no claim of ownership over the properties in question had ever been made by Marquez.

On July 19, 1991, Judge Elsie Ligot-Telan issued the following order:

To ensure that there is enough amount to cover the value of the lots involved if transfer thereof to plaintiff may no longer be effected, pending litigation of said issue, the garnishment made by the Sheriff upon the bank account of Manila Remnant may be lifted only upon the deposit to the Court of the amount of P500,000.00 in cash.

MRCI then filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration praying that it be ordered to reimburse the Ventanillas in the amount of P263,074.10 and that the garnishment of its bank deposit be lifted. This motion was denied by the trial court in its order dated September 30, 1991. A second manifestation and motion filed by MRCI was denied on December 18, 1991. The trial


court also required MRCI to show cause why it should not be cited for contempt for disobedience of its judgment.

These orders were questioned by MRCI in a petition for certiorari before the respondent court on the ground that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the contract to sell in favor of Marquez did not constitute a legal impediment to the immediate execution of the judgment. Furthermore, the cash bond fixed by the trial court for the lifting of the garnishment was fair and reasonable because the value of the lot in question had increased considerably. The appellate court also set aside the show-cause order and held that the trial court should have proceeded under Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and not Section 9 thereof. 1

In the petition now before us, it is submitted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed certain reversible errors to the prejudice of MRCI.

The petitioner contends that the trial court may not enforce it garnishment order after the monetary judgment for damages had already been satisfied and the amount for reimbursement had already been deposited with the sheriff. Garnishment as a remedy is intended to secure the payment of a judgment debt when a well-founded belief exists that the erring party will abscond or deliberately render the execution of the judgment nugatory. As there is no such situation in this case, there is no need for a garnishment order.

It is also averred that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it arbitrarily fixed the amount of the cash bond for the lifting of the garnishment order at P500,000.00.

MRCI further maintains that the sale to Samuel Marquez was valid and constitutes a legal impediment to the execution of the absolute deed of sale to the Ventanillas. At the time of the sale to Marquez, the issue of the validity of the sale to the Ventanillas had not yet been resolved. Furthermore, there was no specific injunction against the petitioner re-selling the property.

Lastly, the petitioner insists that Marquez was a buyer in good faith and had a right to rely on the recitals in the certificate of title. The subject matter of the controversy having passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the respondent court erred in ordering the execution of the absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas.

For their part, the respondents argue that the validity of the sale to them had already been established even while the previous petition was still pending resolution. That petition only questioned the solidary liability of MRCI to the Ventanillas. The portion of the decision ordering the MRCI to execute an absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas became final and executory when the petitioner failed to appeal it to the Supreme Court. There was no need then for an order enjoining the petitioner from re-selling the property in litigation.

They also point to the unusual lack of interest of Marquez in protecting and asserting his right to the disputed property, a clear indication that the alleged sale to him was merely a ploy of

the petitioner to evade the execution of the absolute deed of sale in their favor.

The petition must fail.

The validity of the contract to sell in favor of the Ventanilla spouses is not disputed by the parties. Even in the previous petition, the recognition of that contract was not assigned as error of either the trial court or appellate court. The fact that the MRCI did not question the legality of the award for damages to the Ventanillas also shows that it even then already acknowledged the validity of the contract to sell in favor of the private respondents.

On top of all this, there are other circumstances that cast suspicion on the validity, not to say the very existence, of the contract with Marquez.

First, the contract to sell in favor of Marquez was entered into after the lapse of almost ten years from the rendition of the judgment of the trial court upholding the sale to the Ventanillas.

Second, the petitioner did not invoke the contract with Marquez during the hearing on the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution filed by the private respondents. It disclosed the contract only after the writ of execution had been served upon it.

Third, in its manifestation and motion dated December 21, 1990, the petitioner said it was ready to deliver the titles to the Ventanillas provided that their counterclaims against private respondents were paid or offset first. There was no mention of the contract to sell with Marquez on February 7, 1990.

Fourth, Marquez has not intervened in any of these proceedings to assert and protect his rights to the subject property as an alleged purchaser in good faith.

At any rate, even if it be assumed that the contract to sell in favor of Marquez is valid, it cannot prevail over the final and executory judgment ordering MRCI to execute an absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas. No less importantly, the records do not show that Marquez has already paid the supposed balance amounting to P616,000.00 of the original price of over P800,000.00. 2

The Court notes that the petitioner stands to benefit more from the supposed contract with Marquez than from the contract with the Ventanillas with the agreed price of only P66,571.00. Even if it paid the P210,000.00 damages to the private respondents as decreed by the trial court, the petitioner would still earn more profit if the Marquez contract were to be sustained.

We come now to the order of the trial court requiring the posting of the sum of P500,000.00 for the lifting of its garnishment order.

While the petitioners have readily complied with the order of the trial court for the payment of damages to the Ventanillas, they have, however, refused to execute the absolute deed of sale. It was for the purpose of ensuring their compliance with this portion of the judgment that the trial court issued the garnishment order which by its term could be lifted only upon the filling of a cash bond of P500,000.00.


The petitioner questions the propriety of this order on the ground that it has already partially complied with the judgment and that it has always expressed its willingness to reimburse the amount paid by the respondents. It says that there is no need for a garnishment order because it is willing to reimburse the Ventanillas in lieu of execution of the absolute deed of sale.

The alternative judgment of reimbursement is applicable only if the conveyance of the lots is not possible, but it has not been shown that there is an obstacle to such conveyance. As the main obligation of the petitioner is to execute the absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas, its unjustified refusal to do so warranted the issuance of the garnishment order.

Garnishment is a species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to the litigation. 3 It is an attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim property of the defendant in the hands of a third person or money owed by such third person or garnishee to the defendant. 4 The rules on attachment also apply to garnishment proceedings.

A garnishment order shall be lifted if it established that:

(a) the party whose accounts have been garnished has posted a counterbond or has made the requisite cash deposit; 5

(b) the order was improperly or irregularly issued 6 as where there is no ground for garnishment 7 or the affidavit and/or bond filed therefor are defective or insufficient; 8

(c) the property attached is exempt from execution, hence exempt from preliminary attachment 9 or

(d) the judgment is rendered against the attaching or garnishing creditor. 10

Partial execution of the judgment is not included in the above enumeration of the legal grounds for the discharge of a garnishment order. Neither does the petitioner's willingness to reimburse render the garnishment order unnecessary. As for the counterbond, the lower court did not err when it fixed the same at P500,000.00. As correctly pointed out by the respondent court, that amount corresponds to the current fair market value of the property in litigation and was a reasonable basis for determining the amount of the counterbond.

Regarding the refusal of the petitioner to execute the absolute deed of sale, Section 10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court reads as follows:

Sec. 10. Judgment for specific act; vesting title If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person

appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal property is within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may enter judgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in others and such judgment shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.

Against the unjustified refusal of the petitioner to accept payment of the balance of the contract price, the remedy of the respondents is consignation, conformably to the following provisions of the Civil Code:

Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. . .

Art. 1258. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of the judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases.

The consignation having been made, the interested parties shall also be notified thereof.

Art. 1260. Once the consignation has been duly made, the debtor may ask the judge to order the cancellation of the obligation.

Accordingly, upon consignation by the Ventanillas of the sum due, the trial court may enter judgment canceling the title of the petitioner over the property and transferring the same to the respondents. This judgment shall have the same force and effect as conveyance duly executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.

In sum, we find that:

1. No legal impediment exists to the execution, either by the petitioner or the trial court, of an absolute deed of sale of the subject property in favor of the respondent Ventanillas; and

2. The lower court did not abuse its discretion when it required the posting of a P500,000.00 cash bond for the lifting of the garnishment order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.


G.R. Nos. 112438-39 December 12, 1995

CHEMPHIL EXPORT & IMPORT CORPORATION (CEIC), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS JAIME Y. GONZALES, as Assignee of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION (RCBC), LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIB) and THE PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION (PISO), respondents.

G.R. No. 113394 December 12, 1995

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BANK (AND ITS ASSIGNEE JAIME Y. GONZALES) petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OR APPEALS and CHEMPHIL EXPORT AND IMPORT CORPORATION (CEIC),respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Before us is a legal tug-of-war between the Chemphil Export and Import Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CEIC), on one side, and the PISO and Jaime Gonzales as assignee of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB), on the other (hereinafter referred to as the consortium), over 1,717,678 shares of stock (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed shares") in the Chemical Industries of the Philippines (Chemphil/CIP).

Our task is to determine who is the rightful owner of the disputed shares.

Pursuant to our resolution dated 30 May 1994, the instant case is a consolidation of two petitions for review filed before us as follows:

In G.R. Nos. 112438-39, CEIC seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals (former Twelfth Division) promulgated on 30 June 1993 and its resolution of 29 October 1993, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration in the consolidated cases entitled "Dynetics, Inc., et al. v. PISO, et al." (CA-G.R. No. 20467) and "Dynetics, Inc., et al. v. PISO, et al.; CEIC, Intervenor-Appellee" (CA-G.R. CV No. 26511).

The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads, thus:

WHEREFORE, this Court resolves in these consolidated cases as follows:

1. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court, dated March 25, 1988, and May 20, 1988, subject of CA-G.R. CV No. 10467, are SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the consortium and against appellee Dynetics, Inc., the amount of the judgment, to be determined by Regional Trial Court, taking into account the value of assets that the consortium may have already recovered and

shall have recovered in accordance with the other portions of this decision.

2. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated December 19, 1989 and March 5, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered confirming the ownership of the consortium over the Chemphil shares of stock, subject of CA-G.R. CV No. 26511, and the Order dated September 4, 1989, is reinstated.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 1

In G.R. No. 113394, PCIB and its assignee, Jaime Gonzales, ask for the annulment of the Court of Appeals' decision (former Special Ninth Division) promulgated on 26 March 1993 in "PCIB v. Hon. Job B. Madayag & CEIC" (CA-G.R. SP NO. 20474) dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by PCIB and of said court's resolution dated 11 January 1994 denying their motion for reconsideration of its decision. 2

The antecedent facts leading to the aforementioned controversies are as follows:

On September 25, 1984, Dynetics, Inc. and Antonio M. Garcia filed a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against the PISO, BPI, LBP, PCIB and RCBC or the consortium with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 45 (Civil Case No. 8527), seeking judicial declaration, construction and interpretation of the validity of the surety agreement that Dynetics and Garcia had entered into with the consortium and to perpetually enjoin the latter from claiming, collecting and enforcing any purported obligations which Dynetics and Garcia might have undertaken in said agreement. 3

The consortium filed their respective answers with counterclaims alleging that the surety agreement in question was valid and binding and that Dynetics and Garcia were liable under the terms of the said agreement. It likewise applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Dynetics and Garcia. 4

Seven months later, or on 23 April 1985, Dynetics, Antonio Garcia and Matrix Management & Trading Corporation filed a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against the Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC case) before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135 docketed as Civil Case No. 10398. 5

On 2 July 1985, the trial court granted SBTC's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and on 9 July 1985, a notice of garnishment covering Garcia's shares in CIP/Chemphil (including the disputed shares) was served on Chemphil through its then President. The notice of garnishment was duly annotated in the stock and transfer books of Chemphil on the same date. 6

On 6 September 1985, the writ of attachment in favor of SBTC was lifted. However, the same was reinstated on 30 October 1985. 7


In the meantime, on 12 July 1985, the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 8527 (the consortium case) denied the application of Dynetics and Garcia for preliminary injunction and instead granted the consortium's prayer for a consolidated writ of preliminary attachment. Hence, on 19 July 1985, after the consortium had filed the required bond, a writ of attachment was issued and various real and personal properties of Dynetics and Garcia were garnished, including the disputed shares. 8 This garnishment, however, was not annotated in Chemphil's stock and transfer book.

On 8 September 1987, PCIB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of Dynetics and Garcia for lack of interest to prosecute and to submit its counterclaims for decision, adopting the evidence it had adduced at the hearing of its application for preliminary attachment. 9

On 25 March 1988, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint of Dynetics and Garcia in Civil Case No. 8527, as well as the counterclaims of the consortium, thus:

Resolving defendant's, Philippine Commercial International Bank, MOTION TO DISMISS WITH MOTION TO SUBMIT DEFENDANT PCIBANK's COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECISION, dated September 7, 1987:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted; and the instant case is hereby ordered dismissed pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff having failed to comply with the order dated July 16, 1987, and having not taken further steps to prosecute the case; and

(2) The motion to submit said defendant's counterclaim for decision is denied; there is no need; said counterclaim is likewise dismissed under the authority of Dalman vs. City Court of Dipolog City, L-63194, January 21, 1985, wherein the Supreme Court stated that if the civil case is dismissed, so also is the counterclaim filed therein. "A person cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time" (p. 645, record, Vol. I). 10

The motions for reconsideration filed by the consortium were, likewise, denied by the trial court in its order dated 20 May 1988:

The Court could have stood pat on its order dated 25 March 1988, in regard to which the defendants-banks concerned filed motions for reconsideration. However, inasmuch as plaintiffs commented on said motions that: "3). In any event, so as not to unduly foreclose on the rights of the respective parties to refile and prosecute their respective causes of action, plaintiffs manifest their conformity to the modification of this Honorable Court's order to indicate that the dismissal of the complaint and the counterclaims is without prejudice." (p. 2, plaintiffs' COMMENT etc.

dated May 20, 1988). The Court is inclined to so modify the said order.

WHEREFORE , the order issued on March 25, 1988, is hereby modified in the sense that the dismissal of the complaint as well as of the counterclaims of defendants RCBC, LBP, PCIB and BPI shall be considered as without prejudice (p. 675, record, Vol. I). 11

Unsatisfied with the aforementioned order, the consortium appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 20467.

On 17 January 1989 during the pendency of consortium's appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 20467, Antonio Garcia and the consortium entered into a Compromise Agreement which the Court of Appeals approved on 22 May 1989 and became the basis of its judgment by compromise. Antonio Garcia was dropped as a party to the appeal leaving the consortium to proceed solely against Dynetics, Inc. 12 On 27 June 1989, entry of judgment was made by the Clerk of Court. 13

Hereunder quoted are the salient portions of said compromise agreement:

xxx xxx xxx

3. Defendants, in consideration of avoiding an extended litigation, having agreed to limit their claim against plaintiff Antonio M. Garcia to a principal sum of P145 Million immediately demandable and to waive all other claims to interest, penalties, attorney's fees and other charges. The aforesaid compromise amount of indebtedness of P145 Million shall earn interest of eighteen percent (18%) from the date of this Compromise.

4. Plaintiff Antonio M. Garcia and herein defendants have no further claims against each other.

5. This Compromise shall be without prejudice to such claims as the parties herein may have against plaintiff Dynetics, Inc.

6. Plaintiff Antonio M. Garcia shall have two (2) months from date of this Compromise within which to work for the entry and participation of his other creditor, Security Bank and Trust Co., into this Compromise. Upon the expiration of this period, without Security Bank and Trust Co. having joined, this Compromise shall be submitted to the Court for its information and approval (pp. 27, 28-31, rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 10467). 14

It appears that on 15 July 1988, Antonio Garcia under a Deed of Sale transferred to Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (FCI) the disputed shares and other properties for P79,207,331.28. It was agreed upon that part of the purchase price shall be paid by FCI directly


to SBTC for whatever judgment credits that may be adjudged in the latter's favor and against Antonio Garcia in the aforementioned SBTC case. 15

On 6 March 1989, FCI, through its President Antonio M. Garcia, issued a Bank of America Check No. 860114 in favor of SBTC in the amount of P35,462,869.62. 16 SBTC refused to accept the check claiming that the amount was not sufficient to discharge the debt. The check was thus consigned by Antonio Garcia and Dynetics with the Regional Trial Court as payment of their judgment debt in the SBTC case. 17

On 26 June 1989, FCI assigned its 4,119,614 shares in Chemphil, which included the disputed shares, to petitioner CEIC. The shares were registered and recorded in the corporate books of Chemphil in CEIC's name and the corresponding stock certificates were issued to it. 18

Meanwhile, Antonio Garcia, in the consortium case, failed to comply with the terms of the compromise agreement he entered into with the consortium on 17 January 1989. As a result, on 18 July 1989, the consortium filed a motion for execution which was granted by the trial court on 11 August 1989. Among Garcia's properties that were levied upon on execution were his 1,717,678 shares in Chemphil (the disputed shares) previously garnished on 19 July 1985. 19

On 22 August 1989, the consortium acquired the disputed shares of stock at the public auction sale conducted by the sheriff for P85,000,000.00. 20 On same day, a Certificate of Sale covering the disputed shares was issued to it.

On 30 August 1989, 21 the consortium filed a motion (dated 29 August 1989) to order the corporate secretary of Chemphil to enter in its stock and transfer books the sheriff's certificate of sale dated 22 August 1989, and to issue new certificates of stock in the name of the banks concerned. The trial court granted said motion in its order dated 4 September 1989, thus:

For being legally proper, defendant's MOTION TO ORDER THE CORPORATE SECRETARY OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES OF THE PHILS., INC. (CHEMPIL) TO ENTER IN THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOKS OF CHEMPHIL THE SHERIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED AUGUST 22, 1989 AND TO ISSUE NEW CERTIFICATES OF STOCK IN THE NAME OF THE DEFENDANT BANKS, dated August 29, 1989, is hereby granted.

WHEREFORE, the corporate secretary of the aforesaid corporation, or whoever is acting for and in his behalf, is hereby ordered to (1) record and/or register the Certificate of Sale dated August 22, 1989 issued by Deputy Sheriff Cristobal S. Jabson of this Court; (2) to cancel the certificates of stock of plaintiff Antonio M. Garcia and all those which may have subsequently been issued in replacement and/or in substitution thereof; and (3) to issue in lieu of the said shares new shares of stock in the name of the defendant Banks, namely, PCIB, BPI, RCBC, LBP and PISO bank in such

proportion as their respective claims would appear in this suit (p. 82, record, Vol. II). 22

On 26 September 1989, CEIC filed a motion to intervene (dated 25 September 1989) in the consortium case seeking the recall of the abovementioned order on grounds that it is the rightful owner of the disputed shares. 23 It further alleged that the disputed shares were previously owned by Antonio M. Garcia but subsequently sold by him on 15 July 1988 to Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (FCI) which in turn assigned the same to CEIC in an agreement dated 26 June 1989.

On 27 September 1989, the trial court granted CEIC's motion allowing it to intervene, but limited only to the incidents covered by the order dated 4 September 1989. In the same order, the trial court directed Chemphil's corporate secretary to temporarily refrain from implementing the 4 September 1989 order. 24

On 2 October 1989, the consortium filed their opposition to CEIC's motion for intervention alleging that their attachment lien over the disputed shares of stocks must prevail over the private sale in favor of the CEIC considering that said shares of stock were garnished in the consortium's favor as early as 19 July 1985. 25

On 4 October 1989, the consortium filed their opposition to CEIC's motion to set aside the 4 September 1989 order and moved to lift the 27 September 1989 order. 26

On 12 October 1989, the consortium filed a manifestation and motion to lift the 27 September 1989 order, to reinstate the 4 September 1989 order and to direct CEIC to surrender the disputed stock certificates of Chemphil in its possession within twenty-four (24) hours, failing in which the President, Corporate Secretary and stock and transfer agent of Chemphil be directed to register the names of the banks making up the consortium as owners of said shares, sign the new certificates of stocks evidencing their ownership over said shares and to immediately deliver the stock certificates to them. 27

Resolving the foregoing motions, the trial court rendered an order dated 19 December 1989, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Urgent Motion dated September 25, 1989 filed by CEIC is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order of September 4, 1989, is hereby SET ASIDE, and any and all acts of the Corporate Secretary of CHEMPHIL and/or whoever is acting for and in his behalf, as may have already been done, carried out or implemented pursuant to the Order of September 4, 1989, are hereby nullified.

PERFORCE, the CONSORTIUM'S Motions dated October 3, 1989 and October 11, 1989, are both hereby denied for lack of merit.

The Cease and Desist Order dated September 27, 1989, is hereby AFFIRMED and made PERMANENT.


SO ORDERED. 28

In so ruling, the trial court ratiocinated in this wise:

xxx xxx xxx

After careful and assiduous consideration of the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court holds that CEIC's Urgent Motion to Set Aside the Order of September 4, 1989 is impressed with merit. The CONSORTIUM has admitted that the writ of attachment/garnishment issued on July 19, 1985 on the shares of stock belonging to plaintiff Antonio M. Garcia was not annotated and registered in the stock and transfer books of CHEMPHIL. On the other hand, the prior attachment issued in favor of SBTC on July 2, 1985 by Branch 135 of this Court in Civil Case No. 10398, against the same CHEMPHIL shares of Antonio M. Garcia, was duly registered and annotated in the stock and transfer books of CHEMPHIL. The matter of non-recording of the Consortium's attachment in Chemphil's stock and transfer book on the shares of Antonio M. Garcia assumes significance considering CEIC's position that FCI and later CEIC acquired the CHEMPHIL shares of Antonio M. Garcia without knowledge of the attachment of the CONSORTIUM. This is also important as CEIC claims that it has been subrogated to the rights of SBTC since CEIC's predecessor-in-interest, the FCI, had paid SBTC the amount of P35,462,869.12 pursuant to the Deed of Sale and Purchase of Shares of Stock executed by Antonio M. Garcia on July 15, 1988. By reason of such payment, sale with the knowledge and consent of Antonio M. Garcia, FCI and CEIC, as party-in-interest to FCI, are subrogated by operation of law to the rights of SBTC. The Court is not unaware of the citation in CEIC's reply that "as between two (2) attaching creditors, the one whose claims was first registered on the books of the corporation enjoy priority." (Samahang Magsasaka, Inc. vs. Chua Gan, 96 Phil. 974.)

The Court holds that a levy on the shares of corporate stock to be valid and binding on third persons, the notice of attachment or garnishment must be registered and annotated in the stock and transfer books of the corporation, more so when the shares of the corporation are listed and traded in the stock exchange, as in this case. As a matter of fact, in the CONSORTIUM's motion of August 30, 1989, they specifically move to "order the Corporate Secretary of CHEMPHIL to enter in the stock and transfer books of CHEMPHIL the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale dated August 22, 1989." This goes to show that, contrary to the arguments of the CONSORTIUM, in order that attachment, garnishment and/or encumbrances affecting rights and ownership

on shares of a corporation to be valid and binding, the same has to be recorded in the stock and transfer books.

Since neither CEIC nor FCI had notice of the CONSORTIUM's attachment of July 19, 1985, CEIC's shares of stock in CHEMPHIL, legally acquired from Antonio M. Garcia, cannot be levied upon in execution to satisfy his judgment debts. At the time of the Sheriff's levy on execution, Antonio M. Garcia has no more in CHEMPHIL which could be levied upon. 29

xxx xxx xxx

On 23 January 1990, the consortium and PCIB filed separate motions for reconsideration of the aforestated order which were opposed by petitioner CEIC. 30

On 5 March 1990, the trial court denied the motions for reconsideration. 31

On 16 March 1990, the consortium appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 26511). In its Resolution dated 9 August 1990, the Court of Appeals consolidated CA-G.R. No. 26511 with CA-G.R. No. 20467. 32

The issues raised in the two cases, as formulated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

I

WHETHER OR NOT, UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE CONSORTIUM IN CIVIL CASE NO. 8527;

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. 8527 RESULTED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED THEREIN EVEN AS THE CONSORTIUM APPEALED THE ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL CASE NO. 8527;

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE RENDERED BY THIS COURT ON MAY 22, 1989 HAD THE EFFECT OF DISCHARGING THE ATTACHMENTS ISSUED IN CIVIL CASE NO. 8527;

IV

WHETHER OR NOT THE ATTACHMENT OF SHARES OF STOCK, IN ORDER TO BIND THIRD


PERSONS, MUST BE RECORDED IN THE STOCK AND TRANSFER BOOK OF THE CORPORATION; AND

V

WHETHER OR NOT FERRO CHEMICALS, INC. (FCI), AND ITS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, CEIC, WERE SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY (SBTC) IN A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION. (This issue appears to be material as SBTC is alleged to have obtained an earlier attachment over the same Chemphil shares that the consortium seeks to recover in the case at bar). 33

On 6 April 1990, the PCIB separately filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. No. SP-20474), likewise, assailing the very same orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990, subject of CA-G.R. No. 26511. 34

On 30 June 1993, the Court of Appeals (Twelfth Division) in CA-G.R. No. 26511 and CA-G.R. No. 20467 rendered a decision reversing the orders of the trial court and confirming the ownership of the consortium over the disputed shares. CEIC's motion for reconsideration was denied on 29 October 1993. 35

In ruling for the consortium, the Court of Appeals made the following ratiocination: 36

On the first issue, it ruled that the evidence offered by the consortium in support of its counterclaims, coupled with the failure of Dynetics and Garcia to prosecute their case, was sufficient basis for the RTC to pass upon and determine the consortium's counterclaims.

The Court of Appeals found no application for the ruling in Dalman v. City Court of Dipolog, 134 SCRA 243 (1985) that "a person cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time. If the civil case is dismissed, so also is the counterclaim filed therein" because the factual background of the present action is different. In the instant case, both Dynetics and Garcia and the consortium presented testimonial and documentary evidence which clearly should have supported a judgment on the merits in favor of the consortium. As the consortium correctly argued, the net atrocious effect of the Regional Trial Court's ruling is that it allows a situation where a party litigant is forced to plead and prove compulsory counterclaims only to be denied those counterclaims on account of the adverse party's failure to prosecute his case. Verily, the consortium had no alternative but to present its counterclaims in Civil Case No. 8527 since its counterclaims are compulsory in nature.

On the second issue, the Court of Appeals opined that unless a writ of attachment is lifted by a special order specifically providing for the discharge thereof, or unless a case has been finally dismissed against the party in whose favor the attachment has been issued, the attachment lien subsists. When the consortium, therefore, took an appeal from the Regional Trial Court's orders of March 25, 1988 and May 20, 1988, such appeal had the effect of preserving the consortium's attachment liens secured at the inception of Civil Case No. 8527, invoking the rule in Olib v. Pastoral, 188 SCRA 692 (1988) that where the main action is appealed, the attachment issued in the said main case is also considered appealed.

Anent the third issue, the compromise agreement between the consortium and Garcia dated 17 January 1989 did not result in the abandonment of its attachment lien over his properties. Said agreement was approved by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 22 May 1989. The judgment based on the compromise agreement had the effect of preserving the said attachment lien as security for the satisfaction of said judgment (citing BF Homes, Inc. v. CA, 190 SCRA 262, [1990]).

As to the fourth issue, the Court of Appeals agreed with the consortium's position that the attachment of shares of stock in a corporation need not be recorded in the corporation's stock and transfer book in order to bind third persons.

Section 7(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court was complied with by the consortium (through the Sheriff of the trial court) when the notice of garnishment over the Chemphil shares of Garcia was served on the president of Chemphil on July 19, 1985. Indeed, to bind third persons, no law requires that an attachment of shares of stock be recorded in the stock and transfer book of a corporation. The statement attributed by the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in Samahang Magsasaka, Inc.vs. Gonzalo Chua Guan, G.R. No. L-7252, February 25, 1955 (unreported), to the effect that "as between two attaching creditors, the one whose claim was registered first on the books of the corporation enjoys priority," is an obiter dictum that does not modify the procedure laid down in Section 7(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

Therefore, ruled the Court of Appeals, the attachment made over the Chemphil shares in the name of Garcia on July 19, 1985 was made in accordance with law and the lien created thereby remained valid and subsisting at the time Garcia sold those shares to FCI


(predecessor-in-interest of appellee CEIC) in 1988.

Anent the last issue, the Court of Appeals rejected CEIC's subrogation theory based on Art. 1302 (2) of the New Civil Code stating that the obligation to SBTC was paid by Garcia himself and not by a third party (FCI).

The Court of Appeals further opined that while the check used to pay SBTC was a FCI corporate check, it was funds of Garcia in FCI that was used to pay off SBTC. That the funds used to pay off SBTC were funds of Garcia has not been refuted by FCI or CEIC. It is clear, therefore, that there was an attempt on the part of Garcia to use FCI and CEIC as convenient vehicles to deny the consortium its right to make itself whole through an execution sale of the Chemphil shares attached by the consortium at the inception of Civil Case No. 8527. The consortium, therefore, is entitled to the issuance of the Chemphil shares of stock in its favor. The Regional Trial Court's order of September 4, 1989, should, therefore, be reinstated in toto.

Accordingly, the question of whether or not the attachment lien in favor of SBTC in the SBTC case is superior to the attachment lien in favor of the consortium in Civil Case No. 8527 becomes immaterial with respect to the right of intervenor-appellee CEIC. The said issue would have been relevant had CEIC established its subrogation to the rights of SBTC.

On 26 March 1993, the Court of Appeals (Special Ninth Division) in CA-G.R. No. SP 20474 rendered a decision denying due course to and dismissing PCIB's petition for certiorari on grounds that PCIB violated the rule against forum-shopping and that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by respondent Regional Trial Court in issuing its assailed orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990. PCIB's motion for reconsideration was denied on 11 January 1994. 37

On 7 July 1993, the consortium, with the exception of PISO, assigned without recourse all its rights and interests in the disputed shares to Jaime Gonzales. 38

On 3 January 1994, CEIC filed the instant petition for review docketed as G.R. Nos. 112438-39 and assigned the following errors:

I.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE AND REVERSING THE ORDERS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 5, 1989 AND MARCH 5, 1990 AND IN NOT CONFIRMING PETITIONER'S OWNERSHIP OVER THE DISPUTED CHEMPHIL SHARES

AGAINST THE FRIVOLOUS AND UNFOUNDED CLAIMS OF THE CONSORTIUM.

II.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED:

(1) In not holding that the Consortium's attachment over the disputed Chemphil shares did not vest any priority right in its favor and cannot bind third parties since admittedly its attachment on 19 July 1985 was not recorded in the stock and transfer books of Chemphil, and subordinate to the attachment of SBTC which SBTC registered and annotated in the stock and transfer books of Chemphil on 2 July 1985, and that the Consortium's attachment failed to comply with Sec. 7(d), Rule 57 of the Rules as evidenced by the notice of garnishment of the deputy sheriff of the trial court dated 19 July 1985 (annex "D") which the sheriff served on a certain Thelly Ruiz who was neither President nor managing agent of Chemphil;

(2) In not applying the case law enunciated by this Honorable Supreme Court inSamahang Magsasaka, Inc. vs. Gonzalo Chua Guan, 96 Phil. 974 that as between two attaching creditors, the one whose claim was registered first in the books of the corporation enjoys priority, and which respondent Court erroneously characterized as mere obiter dictum;

(3) In not holding that the dismissal of the appeal of the Consortium from the order of the trial court dismissing its counterclaim against Antonio M. Garcia and the finality of the compromise agreement which ended the litigation between the Consortium and Antonio M. Garcia in


the Dynetics case had ipso jure discharged the Consortium's purported attachment over the disputed shares.

III.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT CEIC HAD BEEN SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF SBTC SINCE CEIC'S PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD PAID SBTC PURSUANT TO THE DEED OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF STOCK EXECUTED BY ANTONIO M. GARCIA ON JULY 15, 1988, AND THAT BY REASON OF SUCH PAYMENT, WITH THE CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF ANTONIO M. GARCIA, FCI AND CEIC, AS PARTY IN INTEREST TO FCI, WERE SUBROGATED BY OPERATION OF LAW TO THE RIGHTS OF SBTC.

IV.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND MADE UNWARRANTED INFERENC

Cases on Provisional Remedies Sec. 8 Rule 57

Documents

damages npc

court of appeals

trial court

compensatory damages

rules of court

honorable court

plaintiff actual

award of damages