8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

1/28

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 173008 February 22, 2012

NENITA GONZAES, SPOUSES GENEROSA GONZAES a!" RO#OFOFERRER, SPOUSES FEIPE GONZAES a!" CAROINA SANTIAGO,SPOUSES OITA GONZAES a!" GERMOGENES GARITOS, SPOUSES#OORES GONZAES a!" FRANCISCO COSTIN, SPOUSES CONC$ITAGONZAES a!" %ONAT$AN CA&E, a!" SPOUSES 'EATRIZ GONZAESa!" ROM( CORTES, REPRESENTE# '( T$EIR ATTORNE()IN)FACTa!" CO)PETITIONER NENITA GONZAES, Petitioners,vs.

MARIANO 'UGAA( AN# UC( 'UGAA(, SPOUSES AICIA 'UGAA(AN# FEIPE 'ARCEONA, CONE( *CONIE* 'UGAA(, %OE( GATAN,(#IA 'UGAA(, SPOUSES UZ&IMIN#A 'UGAA( AN# RE(PAGATPATAN AN# 'EEN 'UGAA(, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

PERAS)'ERNA'E,  J.:

"ssailed in this Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule $% is the Decision& of

the !ourt of "ppeals '!"( dated March )*, )++ in !"-.R. SP No. /&*0& as #ell

as the Resolution) dated 1une ), )++ dis2issin3 petitioners4 2otion for

reconsideration. The !" reversed and set aside the assailed Orders* of the Re3ional

Trial !ourt 'RT!( of 5in3a6en, Pan3asinan, 7ranch */, dated "pril &*, )++% and

"u3ust 0, )++%, respectivel6, in !ivil !ase No. &0&%, den6in3 the de2urrer to

evidence filed b6 herein respondents and instead dis2issed petitioners4 co2plaint.

The 8acts

The deceased spouses 7artolo2e "6ad and Marcelina Te9ada ':Spouses "6ad:( had

five '%( children; nrico, ncarnacion, !onsolacion, Ma

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

2/28

Bithout resolvin3 the fore3oin3 2otion, the RT!, notin3 the failure of the parties to

sub2it a pro9ect of partition, issued a #rit of e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

3/28

#ith the directive but instead filed a de2urrer to evidence, their 2otion should be

dee2ed abandoned. !onseCuentl6, the RT!4s ori3inal Decision stands.

"ccordin3l6, the !" co22itted reversible error in 3rantin3 the de2urrer and

dis2issin3 the "2ended !o2plaint a quo for insufficienc6 of evidence. The

de2urrer to evidence #as clearl6 no lon3er an available re2ed6 to respondents and

should not have been 3ranted, as the RT! had correctl6 done.

BHR8OR, the petition is R"NTD. The assailed Decision and Resolution of

the !" are ST "SID and the Orders of the RT! den6in3 respondents4 de2urrer

are RINST"TD. The Decision of the RT! dated Nove2ber )$, &//% ST"NDS.

SO ORDRD.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

N 7"N!

 

G.R. No. 131+88 Auu- 3, 1//8

ESPIRITA N. ACOSTA, petitioner,vs.

T$E COMMISSION ON EECTIONS, %U#GE GENO&E&A COC$INGMARAM'A, ! er aay a- Pre-"! %u"e o4 e Mu!a5 Cru Tra5Cour, Sa! Faba!6Sa! %a!o, Pa!a-!a! a!" RA(MUN#O I.

RI&ERA, respondents.

 

ROMERO,  J.:

8or the !ourt4s resolution is the instant petition for certiorari #ith pra6er for the

issuance of a #rit of preli2inar6 in9unction andAor te2porar6 restrainin3 order

assailin3 the Dece2ber ), &//=, resolution of the !o22ission on lections

'!OM5!( En Banc in SPR No. &*-/=, entitled :spirita N. "costa v. Hon.

enoveva !ochin3-Mara2ba in her capacit6 as Presidin3 1ud3e, $th Municipal

!ircuit Trial !ourt, San 8abian-San 1acinto, Pan3asinan, and Ra62undo I. Rivera.:

The parties herein #ere candidates for the position of Punon3 7aran3a6 in 736.

Sobol, San 8abian, Pan3asinan, durin3 the Ma6 &), &//=, baran3a6 election. 76 a

#innin3 2ar3in of four votes, petitioner #as proclai2ed as the dul6 elected Punon3

7aran3a6. On Ma6 &%, &//=, Rivera filed an election protest #ith the Municipal

!ircuit Trial !ourt of San 8abian-San 1acinto, alle3in3 that the votes cast for hi2 in

Precincts No. ))-", No. ))-"-&, No. ))-7, and No. ))-7-& #ere not dul6 and

 properl6 accounted for due to :2isreadin3, non-readin3, 2istall6in3, and

2isappreciation of ballotsAvotes,: and pra6in3 for a recount of the votes. The

follo#in3 da6, the court a quosu22oned "costa #ho, on Ma6 &/, &//=, filed aMotion for Ti2e to 8ile "ns#er. In an order dated Ma6 )&, &//=, the court denied

said 2otion and concluded that the election protest #as sufficient in for2 and

substance. 8urther2ore, considerin3 that fro2 the alle3ations in the protest revision

of ballots #as necessar6, the court also ordered the !OM5! lection Re3istrar

andAor the Municipal Treasurer of San 8abian to brin3 to court the ballot bo

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

4/28

still undoc@eted at the ti2e and the parties had not 6et sub2itted an6 evidence

relatin3 to the election protest.

Due process dictates that before an6 decision can be validl6 rendered in a case, the

follo#in3 safe3uards 2ust be 2et; 'a( the court or tribunal 2ust be clothed #ith

 9udicial authorit6 to hear and deter2ine the 2atter before it 'b( it 2ust have

 9urisdiction over the person of the part6 or over the propert6 sub9ect of the

controvers6 'c( the parties thereto 2ust have been 3iven an opportunit6 to adduce

evidence in their behalf, and 'd( such evidence 2ust be considered b6 the tribunal in

decidin3 the case. 1 Bhile the !OM5! cannot be faulted for resolvin3 the issue

raised b6 petitioner in %& (o) 1#-! , na2el6, the propriet6 of the lo#er

court4s order dated May 21, 1! , it e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

5/28

$. That the construction of the !hapel, Nurser6 and Ginder3arten

School shall start i22ediatel6 and 2ust be at least SVNTL

'=+( &E E(*M  finished b6 the end of THR '*( L"RS

fro2 the date hereof, ho#ever, the #hole pro9ect as dra#n in the

 plans and specifications 2ade parts of this donation 2ust be

co2pleted #ithin 8IV '%( L"RS fro2 the date hereon, unless

eon alle3in3 that the ter2s

and conditions of the donation #ere not co2plied #ith b6 the foundation. "2on3

others, it pra6ed for the cancellation of the donation and the reversion of the donated

land to the heirs. The co2plaint #as doc@eted as !ivil !ase No. 0)$.

In its ans#er 'pp. )/-*, ollo(, respondent foundation clai2ed that it had partiall6

and substantiall6 co2plied #ith the conditions of the donation and that the donor has

3ranted the foundation an indefinite e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

6/28

TH 5OBR !OFRT RRD IN DISMISSIN TH

!OMP5"INT.

III. TH 5OBR !OFRT RRD IN NOT RNDRIN

1FDMNT ON TH MRITS 7L B"L O8 1FDMNT ON

TH P5"DINS. 'pp. &-), Petitioner4s 7rief(

Be 3ave due course to the petition on "u3ust *, &/0& 'p. $%,  ollo(. "fter the parties4

sub2ission of their respective briefs, the !ourt resolved to consider the petition

sub2itted for decision on 1anuar6 )=, &/0) 'p. ), ollo(.

The assailed order of the trial court stated that revocation 'of a donation( #ill be

effective onl6 either upon court 9ud32ent or upon consent of the donee as held in the

case of

 &ar3s v. &rovince of arlac, No. )$&/+, 1ul6 &*, &/), $/ Phil. &$*. The trial

court dis2issed the clai2 of petitioners that the stipulation in the donation providin3

for revocation in case of non-co2pliance of conditions in the donation is tanta2ount

to the consent of the donee, opinin3 that the consent conte2plated b6 la# should be

such consent 3iven b6 the donee subsequent  to the effectivit6 of the donation or

violation of the conditions i2posed therein. The trial court further held that, far fro2

consentin3 to the revocation, the donee clai2ed that it had alread6 substantiall6

co2plied #ith the conditions of the donation b6 introducin3 i2prove2ents in the

 propert6 donated valued at 2ore than the a2ount of the donated land. In vie#

thereof, a 9udicial decree revo@in3 the sub9ect donation is necessar6. "ccordin3l6,

under "rticle =$ of the Ne# !ivil !ode, actions to revo@e a donation on the 3round

of non-co2pliance #ith an6 of the conditions of the donation shall prescribe in four

6ears counted fro2 such non-co2pliance. In the instant case, the four-6ear period for 

filin3 the co2plaint for revocation co22enced on "pril /, &/= and eon is

not one for revocation of the donation under "rticle =$ of the Ne# !ivil !ode

#hich prescribes in four '$( 6ears, but one to enforce a #ritten contract #hich

 prescribes in ten '&+( 6ears.

The petition is i2pressed #ith 2erit.

8ro2 the vie#point of 2otive, purpose or cause, donations 2a6 be &( si2ple, )(

re2unerator6 or *( onerous. " si2ple donation is one the cause of #hich is pure

liberalit6 'no strin3s attached(. " re2unerator6 donation is one #here the donee

3ives so2ethin3 to re#ard past or future services or because of future char3es or

 burdens, #hen the value of said services, burdens or char3es is less than the value of

the donation. "n onerous donation is one #hich is sub9ect to burdens, char3es or

future services eCual 'or 2ore( in value than that of the thin3 donated 'd3ardo 5.

Paras, !ivil !ode of the Philippines "nnotated, && ed., Vol. &&, p. =)(.

It is the findin3 of the trial court, #hich is not disputed b6 the parties, that the

donation sub9ect of this case is one #ith an onerous cause. It #as 2ade sub9ect to the

 burden reCuirin3 the donee to construct a chapel, a nurser6 and a @inder3arten school

in the donated propert6 #ithin five 6ears fro2 e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

7/28

e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

8/28

SO ORDRD.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 17eu?e &e)Pre-"e! a!" Ge!era5 Ma!aer, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

PERATA,  J.:

7efore the !ourt is a petition for revie# on certiorari under Rule $% of the Rules of

!ourt see@in3 to reverse and set aside the Decision& and Resolution) dated Nove2ber 

*+, )++ and 8ebruar6 0, )++= of the !ourt of "ppeals '!"( in !"-.R. !V No.

/++&. The !" Decision affir2ed the Orders of the Re3ional Trial !ourt 'RT!( of

7acoor, !avite, 7ranch 0/, dated Septe2ber )0, &//0 and Ma6 , &///, #hile the!"

Resolution denied petitioners4 Motion for Reconsideration.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follo#s;

On March *, &//%, herein respondent filed #ith the RT! of 7acoor, !avite a

!o2plaint for a Su2 of Mone6 and Da2a3es a3ainst herein petitioners alle3in3 asfollo#s;

< < < <

'*( Durin3 the period of Nove2ber &/, &//) to 1anuar6 %, &//*, defendants

herein petitionersE 2ade purchases of various construction 2aterials fro2

 plaintiff corporation herein respondentE in the su2 of P)%/,0+/.%+, #hich

has not been paid up to the present ti2e, both principal and stipulated

interests due thereon.

'$( Plaintiff 2ade several de2ands, oral and #ritten, for the sa2edefendants to pa6 all their obli3ations due plaintiff herein, but defendants

fail and refuse to co2pl6 #ith, despite de2ands 2ade upon the2, to the

da2a3e and pre9udice of plaintiff.

< < < <

BHR8OR, pre2ises considered, it is 2ost respectfull6 pra6ed of this Honorable

!ourt that 9ud32ent be rendered in favor of plaintiff and a3ainst defendants b6

orderin3 defendants to pa6 the su2 of;

'&( P)%/,0+/.%+ as principal obli3ation due plaintiff, plus interest due

thereon at &$ interest per annu2, until all su2s due are paid in full.

')( P$,/%).*0 b6 #a6 of rei2burse2ents of attorne64s fees plus P%++.++

appearance fee in court.

'*( P),+++.++ for liti3ation and other related e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

9/28

On Septe2ber &&, &//%, the RT! issued an Order / deferrin3 resolution of

respondent4s Motion for Partial 1ud32ent on the 3round that there is no clear and

specific ad2ission on the part of petitioners as to the actual a2ount that the6 o#e

respondent.

On 1anuar6 *+, &//, respondent filed an "2ended !o2plaint,&+ #ith leave of court,

alle3in3 that bet#een October &//) until 1anuar6 %, &//*, petitioners purchased fro2

it 'respondent( various construction 2aterials and supplies, the a33re3ate value of

#hich is P)=/,0+/.%+ that onl6 P)+,+++.++ had been paid leavin3 a balance ofP)%/,0+/.%+.

In their "ns#er to "2ended !o2plaint,&&  petitioners reiterated their alle3ations in

their "ns#er to !o2plaint.

On March 0, &//, respondent filed a ReCuest for "d2ission&) as@in3 that petitioners

ad2it the 3enuineness of various docu2ents, such as state2ents of accounts,

deliver6 receipts, invoices and de2and letter attached thereto as #ell as the truth of

the alle3ations set forth therein.

Respondent basicall6 as@ed petitioners to ad2it that the latter4s principal obli3ation is

P)=/,0+/.%+ and that onl6 P)+,+++.++ #as paid.

On 1une *, &//, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion&* before the RT!

 pra6in3 that since petitioners failed to ti2el6 file their co22ent to the ReCuest for

"d2ission, the6 be considered to have ad2itted the 3enuineness of the docu2ents

described in and e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

10/28

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it #as denied b6 the RT! in its

Order dated Ma6 , &///.

Fn6ieldin3, petitioners filed an appeal #ith the !".

On Nove2ber *+, )++, the !" rendered its presentl6 assailed Decision, affir2in3

the Septe2ber )0, &//0 and Ma6 , &/// Orders of the RT!.

Petitioners4 Motion for Reconsideration #as subseCuentl6 denied b6 the !" via its

Resolution dated 8ebruar6 0, )++=.

Hence, the instant petition for revie# on certiorari raisin3 the follo#in3 issues;

TH HONOR"75 !OFRT SHOF5D NOT H"V DNID D8ND"NTS-

"PP55"NTS4 'PTITIONRS( !OMMNT "ND RF5D TH"T THR B"S

IMP5ID "DMISSION !ONT"IND IN TH RJFST.

THR SHOF5D NOT H"V 7N " SFMM"RL 1FDMNT ""INST

D8ND"NTS"PP55"NTS 'PTITIONRS(.

)+

In their first assi3ned error, petitioners insist in ar3uin3 that respondent #aived its

ReCuest for "d2ission #hen it filed its Second "2ended !o2plaint that all 2otions

or reCuests based on the co2plaint, #hich #as a2ended, should no lon3er be

considered. Petitioners also contend that the ReCuest for "d2ission #as not in the

for2 specified b6 the Rules of !ourt as it did not specif6 a period #ithin #hich to

repl6 as reCuired b6 Section &, Rule ) of the sa2e Rules.

"s to the second assi3n2ent of error, petitioners aver that the su22ar6 9ud32ent

issued b6 the RT! is i2proper and #ithout le3al bases, considerin3 that 3enuine

issues #ere raised in the pleadin3s filed b6 petitioners.

The petition lac@s 2erit.

The !ourt a3rees #ith the !" in holdin3 that respondent4s Second "2ended

!o2plaint supersedes onl6 its "2ended !o2plaint and nothin3 2ore.

Section 0, Rule &+ of the Rules of !ourt provides;

Sec. 0. Effect of a4ended pleadin . "n a2ended pleadin3 supersedes the pleadin3

that it a2ends. Ho#ever, ad2issions in superseded pleadin3s 2a6 be received in

evidence a3ainst the pleader and clai2s or defenses alle3ed therein not incorporatedin the a2ended pleadin3 shall be dee2ed #aived.

8ro2 the fore3oin3, it is clear that respondent4s ReCuest for "d2ission is not dee2ed

abandoned or #ithdra#n b6 the filin3 of the Second "2ended !o2plaint.

The !ourt also finds no error #hen the !" ruled that petitioners4 !o22ents on the

ReCuest for "d2ission #as filed out of ti2e, and Cuotes #ith approval the

disCuisition of the appellate court on this 2atter, to #it;

< < < Pursuant to the above-Cuoted Section ) of Rule ) of the Rules of !ourt, the

 part6 to #ho2 the reCuest is directed 2ust respond to the reCuest #ithin a period of

not less than ten '&+( da6s after the service thereof, or upon such further ti2e the

!ourt 2a6 allo# on 2otion. In the instant case, the plaintiff-appellee4s herein

respondent4s :ReCuest: failed to desi3nate an6 period for the filin3 of the defendants-

appellants4 herein petitioners4 response. Neither did the trial court fi< the period for

the sa2e upon 2otion of the parties. Ho#ever, such failure to desi3nate does not

auto2aticall6 2ean that the filin3 or the service of an ans#er or co22ent to the

:ReCuest: #ould be left to the #hi2s and caprices of defendants-appellants. It 2ust

 be reiterated that one of the 2ain ob9ectives of Rule ) is to e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

11/28

above2entioned Rule, the part6 bein3 reCuested should file an ob9ection to the effect

that the reCuest for ad2ission is i2proper and that there is no lon3er an6 need to

den6 ane# the alle3ations contained therein considerin3 that these 2atters have

alread6 been previousl6 denied.

The fore3oin3 not#ithstandin3, the !ourt finds that the !" #as correct in sustainin3

the su22ar6 9ud32ent rendered b6 the RT!.1âwphi1

Sections & and *, Rule *% of the Rules of !ourt provide as follo#s;

Section &. Su22ar6 9ud32ent for clai2ant. " part6 see@in3 to recover upon a

clai2, counterclai2, or cross-clai2 or to obtain a declarator6 relief 2a6, at an6 ti2e

after the pleadin3 in ans#er thereto has been served, 2ove #ith supportin3

affidavits, depositions or ad2issions for a su22ar6 9ud32ent in his favor upon all or 

an6 part thereof.

Section *. Motion and proceedin3s thereon. The 2otion shall be served at least ten

'&+( da6s before the ti2e specified for the hearin3. The adverse part6 2a6 serve

opposin3 affidavits, depositions, or ad2issions at least three '*( da6s before the

hearin3. "fter the hearin3, the 9ud32ent sou3ht shall be rendered forth#ith if the

 pleadin3s, supportin3 affidavits, depositions, and ad2issions on file, sho# that,

e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

12/28

BHR8OR, the instant petition Is DNID. The assailed Decision and

Resolution of the !ourt of "ppeals are "88IRMD.

SO ORDRD.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

8IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

13/28

re2edies of ne# trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate re2edies are no

lon3er available throu3h no fault of the petitioner.:E=

The petitioner 2oved for the reconsideration of the outri3ht dis2issal, but the !"

denied its 2otion for reconsideration on October )$, )++* on the basis that petitioner 

did not sho# #h6 it had not availed itself of the ordinar6 re2edies of ne# trial,

appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate re2edies as provided in Section &,

Rule $= of the ules of ourt .

I--ue-

Hence, the petitioner ascribes to the !" the follo#in3 errors, to #it;

I.

TH RSPONDNT !OFRT O8 "PP"5S SRIOFS5L RRD IN

RF5IN TH"T PTITIONR 8"I5D TO P5"IN BHL IT DID NOT

"V"I5 O8 TH OTHR RMDIS NFMR"TD FNDR S!TION

& RF5 $= O8 TH &//= RF5S ON !IVI5 PRO!DFR.

II.

TH RSPONDNT !OFRT O8 "PP"5S SRIOFS5L RRD IN

RF5IN TH"T PTITIONR !OF5D H"V "SS"I5D TH DD

O8 S"5 "ND JFSTIOND TH 8OR!5OSFR PRO!DINS

OR SOFHT TH JFITIN O8 TIT5 TO TH SF71!T

PROPRTL.

The decisive Cuer6 is #hether the action for annul2ent of 9ud32ent under Rule $=

#as a proper recourse for the petitioner to set aside the decision rendered in !ivil!ase No. M"N-)0*0.

Ru5!

Be den6 the petition for revie#.

I.

" petition for annul2ent of 9ud32ent is a re2ed6 in eCuit6 so e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

14/28

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

15/28

8IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

16/28

1ud32ent of the RT!

On 1anuar6 , &//0, the RT! rendered its 9ud32ent in !ivil !ase No. &)=+=,

disposin3 as follo#s;

BHR8OR, pre2ises considered, the court hereb6 resolves that the e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

17/28

D7P sub2its the follo#in3 issues for consideration, na2el6;

BHTHR OR NOT TH D!ISION O8 TH !OFRT O8 "PP"5S D"TD

M"R!H ), )++* "ND ITS RSO5FTION D"TD O!TO7R /, DNLIN

PTITIONR4S MOTION 8OR R!ONSIDR"TION BR ISSFD IN

"!!ORD"N! BITH 5"B, PRV"I5IN 1FRISPRFDNTI"5 D!ISION

"ND SFPPORTD 7L VIDN!

BHTHR OR NOT TH HONOR"75 !OFRT O8 "PP"5S "DHRD TOTH FSF"5 !OFRS O8 1FDI!I"5 PRO!DINS IN D!IDIN !.".-.R.

!V NO. %/$/& "ND THR8OR IN "!!ORD"N! BITH TH :5"B O8

TH !"S DO!TRIN.:))

Rulin3

The appeal lac@s 2erit.

&.

8indin3s of the !" #ere supported b6 the

evidence as #ell as b6 la# and 9urisprudence

D7P sub2its that the loan had been 3ranted under its supervised credit financin3

sche2e for the develop2ent of a beach resort, and the releases of the proceeds #ould

 be sub9ect to conditions that included the verification of the pro3ress of #or@s in the

 pro9ect to forestall diversion of the loan proceeds and that under Stipulation No. )

of the 2ort3a3e contract, further loan releases #ould be ter2inated and the account

#ould be considered due and de2andable in the event of a deviation fro2 the

 purpose of the loan,)* includin3 the failure to put up the reCuired eCuit6 and the

diversion of the loan proceeds to other purposes.)$ It assails the declaration b6 the

!" that uaria !orporation had not 6et been in default in its obli3ations despite

violations of the ter2s of the 2ort3a3e contract securin3 the pro2issor6 note.

uaria !orporation counters that it did not violate the ter2s of the pro2issor6 note

and the 2ort3a3e contracts because D7P had full6 collected the interest

not#ithstandin3 that the principal obli3ation did not 6et fall due and beco2e

de2andable.)%

The sub2issions of D7P lac@ 2erit and substance.

The a3ree2ent bet#een D7P and uaria !orporation #as a loan. Fnder the la#, a

loan reCuires the deliver6 of 2one6 or an6 other consu2able ob9ect b6 one part6 to

another #ho acCuires o#nership thereof, on the condition that the sa2e a2ount or

Cualit6 shall be paid.) 5oan is a reciprocal obli3ation, as it arises fro2 the sa2e

cause #here one part6 is the creditor, and the other the debtor .)= The obli3ation of

one part6 in a reciprocal obli3ation is dependent upon the obli3ation of the other, and

the perfor2ance should ideall6 be si2ultaneous. This 2eans that in a loan, the

creditor should release the full loan a2ount and the debtor repa6s it #hen it beco2es

due and de2andable.)0

In its assailed decision, the !" found and held thusl6;

< < < <

< < < It is undisputed that appellee obtained a loan fro2 appellant, and as securit6,

e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

18/28

fulfil its o#n obli3ation. Moreover, the fact that appellee #as not 6et in default

rendered the foreclosure proceedin3s pre2ature and i2proper.

The properties #hich stood as securit6 for the loan #ere foreclosed #ithout an6

de2and havin3 been 2ade on the principal obli3ation. 8or an obli3ation to beco2e

due, there 2ust 3enerall6 be a de2and. Default 3enerall6 be3ins fro2 the 2o2ent

the creditor de2ands the perfor2ance of the obli3ation. Bithout such de2and,

 9udicial or e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

19/28

 perfor2ance in all its transactions because its business #as i2bued #ith public

interest.*0 The hi3h standards #ere also necessar6 to ensure public confidence in the

 ban@in3 s6ste2, for, accordin3 to Philippine National 7an@ v. Pi@e;*/ :The stabilit6

of ban@s lar3el6 depends on the confidence of the people in the honest6 and

efficienc6 of ban@s.: Thus, D7P had to act #ith 3reat care in appl6in3 the

stipulations of its a3ree2ent #ith uaria !orporation, lest it erodes such public

confidence. Let, D7P failed in its dut6 to e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

20/28

*.

uarifia !orporation is le3all6 entitled to the

restoration of the possession of the resort co2ple<

and pa62ent of reasonable rentals b6 D7P

Havin3 found and pronounced that the e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

21/28

Fpon #ithdra#al fro2 "TI and deliver6 to !ala2ba Steel, it #as found out that the

da2a3e a2ounted to FSQ&),/&.*. "s it did before, !ala2ba Steel re9ected the

da2a3ed ship2ent for bein3 unfit for the intended purpose.

!ala2ba Steel attributed the da2a3es on both ship2ents to S5I as the carrier and

"TI as the arrastre operator in char3e of the handlin3 and dischar3e of the coils and

filed a clai2 a3ainst the2. Bhen S5I and "TI refused to pa6, !ala2ba Steel filed

an insurance clai2 for the total a2ount of the car3o a3ainst 7PIAMS and Mitsuias

car3o insurers. "s a result, 7PIAMS and Mitsui beca2e subro3ated in place of and#ith all the ri3hts and defenses accorded b6 la# in favor of !ala2ba Steel.

Opposin3 the co2plaint, "TI, in its"ns#er, denied the alle3ations and insisted that

the coils in t#o ship2ents #ere alread6 da2a3ed upon receipt fro2 S5Is vessels.

It li@e#ise insisted that it e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

22/28

Surve6or of R K R Industrial and Marine Services, Inc., #ho personall6 surve6ed the

sub9ect car3oes on board the vessel as #ell as the 2anner the "TI e2plo6ees

dischar3ed the coils. The docu2ents presented #ere the 7ills of 5adin3, Secretar6s

!ertificate)$ of PP", 3rantin3 "TI the dut6 and privile3e to provide arrastre and

stevedorin3 services at South Harbor, Port of Manila, !ontract for !ar3o Handlin3

Services,)% Da2a3e Report) and Turn Over Report 2ade b6 Rodri3o.)= S5I also

adopted the Surve6 Reports sub2itted b6 7PIAMS and Mitsui.)0

5astl6, "TI sub2itted the "ffidavits of its 7ad Order Inspector Ra2on arcia'arcia()/ and !lai2s Officer Ra2iro De Vera.*+ The docu2ents attached to the

sub2issions #ere the Turn Over Surve6s of 7ad !ar3o Order ,*&ReCuests for 7ad

Order Surve6,*) !ar3o atepasses issued b6 "TI,**  Notices of 5ossA!lai2s of

!ala2ba Steel*$and !ontract for !ar3o Handlin3 Services.*%

On &= Septe2ber )++, RT! Ma@ati !it6 rendered a decision findin3 both the S5I

and "TI liable for the da2a3es sustained b6 the t#o ship2ents. The dispositive

 portion reads; BHR8OR, 9ud32ent is hereb6 rendered in favor of 7PIAMS and

MitsuiE and a3ainst S5I Inc.E and "TIE, 9ointl6 and severall6 orderin3 the latter to

 pa6 7PIAMS and MitsuiE the follo#in3; &. "ctual da2a3es a2ountin3 to

FSQ&=,%+.$0 plus le3al interest per annu2 co22encin3 fro2 the filin3 of thisco2plaint, until the sa2e is full6 paid

). "ttorne6s fees in a su2 eCuivalent to )+ of the a2ount clai2ed

*. !osts of suit.*

"33rieved, S5I and "TI filed their respective appeals before the !ourt of "ppeals

on both Cuestions of fact and la#.*=

7efore the appellate court, S5I ar3ued that the trial court erred #hen it found

7PIAMS has the capacit6 to sue and #hen it assu2ed 9urisdiction over the case. Italso Cuestioned the rulin3 on its liabilit6 since the Surve6 Reports indicated that the

cause ofloss and da2a3e #as due to the :rou3h handlin3 of "TIs stevedores durin3

dischar3e fro2 vessel to shore and durin3 loadin3 operation onto the truc@s.:It

invo@ed the li2itation of liabilit6 of FSQ%++.++ per pac@a3e asprovided in

!o22on#ealth "ct No. % or the !arria3e of oods b6 Sea "ct '!OS"(. *0 On the

other hand, "TI Cuestioned the capacit6 to sue of 7PIAMS and Mitsui and the a#ard

of attorne6s fees despite its lac@ of 9ustification in the bod6 of the decision. "TI also

i2puted error on the part of the trial court #hen it ruled that "TIs e2plo6ees #ere

ne3li3ent in the rulin3 of the ship2ents. It also insisted on the applicabilit6 of the

 provision of !OS" on li2itation of liabilit6.*/

In its Decision,$+ the !ourt of "ppeals absolved "TI fro2 liabilit6 thereb6 2odif6in3

the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portions reads;

BHR8OR, the appeal of S5I is DNID, #hile that of "TI is R"NTD.

The assailed 1ud32ent dated Septe2ber &=, )++ of 7ranch &*0, RT! of Ma@ati

!it6 in!ivil !ase No. +%-&+0 is hereb6 MODI8ID absolvin3 "TI fro2 liabilit6 and

deletin3 the a#ard of attorne6s fees. The rest of the decision is affir2ed.$&

7efore this !ourt, S5I see@s the reversal of the rulin3 on its liabilit6.

"t the outset, and notabl6, S5I included a2on3 its ar3u2ents the attribution of

liabilit6 to "TI but it failed to i2plead the latter as a part6 to the present petition.

This non-inclusion #as raised b6 7PIAMS and Mitsui as an issue$) in its

!o22entAOpposition $* and Me2orandu2;$$ 8or reasons @no#n onl6 to S5IE,it did

not i2plead "TI as a part6 respondent in this case #hen it could have easil6 done so.

!onsiderin3 the nature of the ar3u2ents raised b6 petitioner pointin3 to "TI as solel6

responsible for the da2a3es sustained b6 the sub9ect ship2ents, it is respectfull6

sub2itted that "TI is an indispensable part6 in this case. Bithout "TI bein3

i2pleaded, the issue of #hether "TI is solel6 responsible for the da2a3es could not

 be deter2ined #ith finalit6 b6 this Honorable !ourt. "TI certainl6 deserves to beheard on the issue but it could not defend itself because it #as not i2pleaded before

this !ourt. Perhaps, this is the reason #h6 S5IE left out "TI in this case so that it

could not rebut #hile petitioner puts it at fault.$%

S5I in its Repl6$  put the bla2e for the non-e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

23/28

"TI, the arrastreoperator, #hich has been cleared b6 the !ourt of "ppeals. Neither

can it ar3ue that the consi3nee should bear the loss.

Thus confined, #e 3o to the 2erits of the ar3u2ents of S5I.

8irst Issue; 5iabilit6 of S5I

S5I bases of its non-liabilit6 onthe surve6 reports prepared b6 7PIAMS and Mitsuis

#itness Manuel #hich found that the cause of da2a3e #as the rou3h handlin3 on theship2ent b6 the stevedores of "TI durin3 the dischar3in3 operations. $0 Ho#ever,

Manuel does not absolve S5I of liabilit6. The #itness in fact includes S5I in the

findin3s of ne3li3ence. Para3raphs * and && of the affidavit of #itness Manuel

attribute fault to both S5I and "TI.

*. The vessel M.V. :"STRN VNFS: V ))-S carr6in3 the said ship2ent of ))

coils of various steel sheets arrived at the port of Manila and dischar3ed the said

ship2ent on or about && 8ebruar6 )++$ to the arrastre operator "TIE. I personall6

noticed that the )) coils #ere rou3hl6 handled durin3 their dischar3in3 fro2 the

vessel to the pier of "TIE and even durin3 the loadin3 operations of these coils fro2

the pier to the truc@s that #ill transport the coils to the consi3neess #arehouse.Durin3 the aforesaid operations, the e2plo6ees and for@lift operators of S5IE and

"TIE #ere ver6 ne3li3ent in the handlin3 of the sub9ect car3oes.

< < < <

&&. The vessel M.V. :"STRN VNFS: V )%-S carr6in3 the said ship2ent of %+

coils of various steel sheets arrived at the port of Manila and dischar3ed the said

ship2ent on or about )& Ma6 )++$ to the arrastre operator "TIE. I personall6

noticed that the %+ coils #ere rou3hl6 handled durin3 their dischar3in3 fro2 the

vessel to the pier of "TIE and even durin3 the loadin3 operations of these coils fro2

the pier to the truc@s that #ill transport the coils to the consi3neess #arehouse.Durin3 the aforesaid operations, the e2plo6ees and for@lift operators of S5IE and

"TIE #ere ver6 ne3li3ent in the handlin3 of the sub9ect car3oes.$/ '2phasis

supplied(.

S5I cannot rel6 onl6 on parts it chooses. The entire bod6 of evidence should

deter2ine the liabilit6 of the parties. 8ro2 the state2ents of Manuel, S5IE #as

ne3li3ent, #hether solel6 or to3ether #ith "TI.

To further press its cause, S5I cites the affidavit of its #itness Rodri3o #ho stated

that the cause of the da2a3e #as the rou3h 2ishandlin3 b6 "TIs stevedores.

The affidavit of Rodri3o states that his functions as a car3o surve6or are, '&( 3ettin3

hold of a cop6 of the bill of ladin3 and car3o 2anifest ')( inspection and 2onitorin3

of the car3o on-board, durin3 dischar3in3 and after unloadin3 fro2 the vessel and

'*( 2a@in3 a necessar6 report of his findin3s. Thus, upon arrival at the South Harbor

of Manila of the t#o vessels of S5I on && 8ebruar6 )++$ and on )& Ma6 )++$,

Rodri3o i22ediatel6 boarded the vessels to inspect and 2onitor the unloadin3 of the

car3oes. In both instances, it #as his findin3 that there #as 2ishandlin3 on the part

of "TIs stevedores #hich he reported as the cause of the da2a3e. %+ asil6 seen,

ho#ever, is the absence of a crucial point in deter2inin3 liabilit6 of either or bothS5I and "TI lac@ of deter2ination #hether the car3o #as in a 3ood order

condition as described in the bills of ladin3 at the ti2e of his boardin3. "s Rodri3o

ad2its, it #as also his dut6 to inspect and 2onitor the car3o on-board upon arrival of 

the vessel. S5I cannot invo@e its non-liabilit6 solel6 on the 2anner the car3o #as

dischar3ed and unloaded. The actual condition of the car3oes upon arrival prior to

dischar3e is eCuall6 i2portant and cannot be disre3arded. Proof is needed that the

car3o arrived at the port of Manila in 3ood order condition and re2ained as such

 prior to its handlin3 b6 "TI.

!o22on carriers, fro2 the nature of their business and on public polic6

considerations, are bound to observe e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

24/28

turnover b6 S5I to "TIs possession #hile a total of eleven coils #ere partl6 dented

and cru2pled prior to turnover based on Turn Over Surve6 7ad Order !ar3oes Nos.

0** and 0*%.

!ala2ba Steel reCuested for a re-e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

25/28

"ccordin3l6, the issue #hether or not S5I has li2ited liabilit6 as a carrier is

deter2ined b6 either absence or presence of proof that the nature and value of the

3oods have been declared b6 Su2ito2o !orporation and inserted in the bills of

ladin3.

S5I contends that the invoices specif6in3 the #ei3ht, Cuantit6, description and

value of the car3o in reference to the bills of ladin3 do not prove the fact that the

shipper co2plied #ith the reCuire2ents 2andated b6 the !OS". It contends that

there 2ust be an insertion of this declaration in the bill of ladin3 itself to fall outsidethe statutor6 li2itation of liabilit6.

S5I asserts that the appellate court erred #hen it ruled that there #as co2pliance

#ith the declaration reCuire2ent even if the value of the ship2ent and fact of

 pa62ent #ere indicated on the invoice and not on the bill of ladin3 itself.

There is no Cuestion about the declaration of the nature, #ei3ht and description of

the 3oods on the first bill of ladin3.

The bills of ladin3 represent the for2al eed that all the needed details are in the invoice, #hich

:contains the ite2i>ed list of 3oods shipped to a bu6er, statin3 Cuantities, prices,

shippin3 char3es,: and other details #hich 2a6 contain nu2erous

sheets.=$ !o2pliance can be attained b6 incorporatin3 the invoice, b6 #a6 of

reference, to the bill of ladin3 provided that the for2er containin3 the description of

the nature, value andAor pa62ent of frei3ht char3es isas in this case dul6 ad2itted as

evidence.

In Fns#orth Transport International'Phils.(, Inc. v. !ourt of "ppeals,=% the !ourt

held that the insertion of an invoice nu2ber does not in itself sufficientl6 and

convincin3l6 sho# that petitioner had @no#led3e of the value of the car3o. Ho#ever,

the sa2e interpretation does not sCuarel6 appl6 if the carrier had been advised of the

value of the 3oods as evidenced b6 the invoice and pa62ent of correspondin3 frei3ht

char3es. It #ould be unfair for S5I to invo@e the li2itation under !OS" #hen the

shipper in fact paid the frei3ht char3es based on the value of the 3oods. In "da2s

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

26/28

1udicial ad2issions are le3all6 bindin3 on the part6 2a@in3 the ad2issions. Pre-trial

ad2ission in civil cases is one of the instances of 9udicial ad2issions eed that;

Once the stipulations are reduced into #ritin3 and si3ned b6 the parties and their

counsels, the6 beco2e bindin3 on the parties #ho 2ade the2. The6 beco2e 9udicialad2issions of the fact or facts stipulated. ven if placed at a disadvanta3eous

 position, a part6 2a6 not be allo#ed to rescind the2 unilaterall6, it 2ust assu2e the

conseCuences of the disadvanta3e.0$

Moreover, in "lfelor v. Halasan,0% this !ourt declared that;

" part6 #ho 9udiciall6 ad2its a fact cannot later challen3e that fact as 9udicial

ad2issions are a #aiver of proof production of evidence is dispensed #ith. "

 9udicial ad2ission also re2oves an ad2itted fact fro2 the field of controvers6.

!onseCuentl6, an ad2ission 2ade in the pleadin3s cannot be controverted b6 the

 part6 2a@in3 such ad2ission and are conclusive as to such part6, and all proofs tothe contrar6 or inconsistent there #ith should be i3nored, #hether ob9ection is

interposed b6 the part6 or not. The alle3ations, state2ents or ad2issions contained in

a pleadin3 are conclusive as a3ainst the pleader. " part6 cannot subseCuentl6 ta@e a

 position contrar6 of or inconsistent #ith #hat #as pleaded.0 '!itations o2itted(

The ad2ission havin3 been 2ade in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial b6 the parties, it

2ust be treated as a 9udicial ad2ission. Fnder Section $, of Rule &)/ of the Rules of

!ourt, a 9udicial ad2ission reCuires no proof.0=

It is inconceivable that a shippin3 co2pan6 #ith 2ariti2e e

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

27/28

 petitioners the Ta@e-Over Order of the G7M7PM 2ana3e2ent dated October )0,

&//0 issued b6 then "3riculture Secretar6 !arlos . Do2in3ue>.

In disposin3 of said co2plaints on "pril &&, &//=, the Office of the O2buds2an

issued a resolution 'hereinafter, :O2buds2an resolution:(* e#  of the Rules of!ourt)= If it is acri4inal  case, the proper re2ed6 is to file #ith the %upre4e ourt an

oriinal petition for certiorari under ule ?)0

Be find that, althou3h the !" #as correct in dis2issin3 the petition for certiorari, it

erroneousl6 invo@ed as ratio decidendi Section )= of R" ==+/ #hich applies in

ad2inistrative cases onl6, not cri2inal cases,&+ such as the 3raft and corruption

char3e at bar. In our en banc decision in @abian vs) +esierto,&& #hich is still

controllin3, #e held that Section )= applies onl6 #henever an appeal

 b6 certiorari under Rule $% is ta@en fro2 a decision in an ad2inistrative disciplinar6

action. Nevertheless, #e declared Section )= unconstitutional for e #as valid. 7esides, the facts and the

evidence on record do not sho# an6 interest personal or other#ise on the

8/18/2019 Civpro Cases 25-35

28/28

 part of respondent Ma6or 7un6e in the i2ple2entation of Secretar6

Do2in3ue> Order. "ccordin3l6, the e