1964 / Jan

G.R. No. L-21399 - JANUARY 1964 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-21399January 31, 1964 Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. G.R. No. L-20741January 31, 1964 Socorro A. Gillera vs. Corazon Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-20242January 31, 1964 Francisco Allam, et al. vs. Valentina Acosta, et al. G.R. No. L-20025January 31, 1964 Faustino Cuneta vs. Manuel Castañeda, et al. G.R. No. L-19881January 31, 1964 Alfredo Cerbo vs. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. G.R. No. L-19782January 31, 1964 Commissioner of Immigration vs. Honorio Romero, et al. G.R. No. L-19745January 31, 1964 Eliseo Flora, et al. vs. Vicente Oximana, et al. G.R. No. L-19742January 31, 1964 Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-19631January 31, 1964 Pastor D. Ago vs. Teofilo B. Buslon, et al. G.R. No. L-19554January 31, 1964 Purificacion Pascua vs. Jesus Y. Perez, et al. G.R. No. L-19420January 31, 1964 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), et al. vs. Sergio Bognot, et al. G.R. No. L-19065January 31, 1964 Manuela Advincula vs. Manuel Advincula G.R. No. L-19064January 31, 1964 In re: Paz E. Siguion Torres Paz E. Siguion Torres vs. Conchita Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-18885January 31, 1964 Chieng Yen vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18773January 31, 1964 CMS Estate, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. G.R. No. L-18583January 31, 1964 Vicente D. Sarmiento, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-18510January 31, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. Sabbun G.R. No. L-18482January 31, 1964 Maria Roa vs. L. Pasicolan, et al. G.R. No. L-18291January 31, 1964 Philippines International Surety Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-18237January 31, 1964 Ireneo V. Bernardo vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-18236January 31, 1964 Angel Esler vs. Domingo Ellama, et al. G.R. No. L-18200January 31, 1964 Manila Railroad Company vs. MRR Yard Crew Union, et al. G.R. No. L-18160 and L-18249January 31, 1964 Manila Railroad Company vs. Union de Maquinistas, et al. G.R. Nos. L-18071-72January 31, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Indic, et al. G.R. No. L-17871January 31, 1964 Manila Railroad Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17749January 31, 1964 Vicente Tamayo vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. G.R. No. L-16896January 31, 1964 Catalina B. Alberca vs. Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women G.R. No. L-16349January 31, 1964 In re: Doña Gabina Raquel vs. Aurea Matias G.R. No. L-15645January 31, 1964 Paz P. Arrieta, et al. vs. National Rice and Corn Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-15460January 31, 1964 Pedro San Diego vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-15334January 31, 1964 Board of Assessment Appeals, et al. vs. Manila Electric Company G.R. No. L-15027January 31, 1964 In re: Jimmy Lee vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-14941January 31, 1964 Natalio Ventosa vs. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. G.R. No. L-20416January 30, 1964 Juan N. Evangelista, et al. vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-19850January 30, 1964 Vigan Electric Light Company, Inc. vs. Public Service Commission G.R. No. L-19377January 30, 1964 Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-18788January 30, 1964 Romulo Lopez, et al. vs. Luis-Gonzaga, et al. G.R. No. L-18776January 30, 1964 Urbano Sapico, et al. vs. Manila Oceanic Lines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-18611January 30, 1964 City Lumber, Inc. vs. Melencio R. Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-18521January 30, 1964 In re: Kwan Kwock How vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18516January 30, 1964 In re: Yap Chun vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-18506January 30, 1964 In re: Ao Lin. vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-18345January 30, 1964 Pan American World Airways vs. Paa Employees' Association (PTGWO), et al. G.R. No. L-16490January 30, 1964 Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-15894January 30, 1964 Republic of the Philippines vs. Equitable Banking Corp. Republic of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al. G.R. No. L-18511January 22, 1964 Ignacio Verdera, et al. vs. Jaime Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-17605January 22, 1964 Poblete Construction Company, et al. vs. Social Security Commission, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. Socorro A. Gillera vs. Corazon Fernandez, et al. Francisco Allam, et al. vs. Valentina Acosta, et al. Faustino Cuneta vs. Manuel Castañeda, et al. Alfredo Cerbo vs. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. Commissioner of Immigration vs. Honorio Romero, et al. Eliseo Flora, et al. vs. Vicente Oximana, et al. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Pastor D. Ago vs. Teofilo B. Buslon, et al. Purificacion Pascua vs. Jesus Y. Perez, et al. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), et al. vs. Sergio Bognot, et al. Manuela Advincula vs. Manuel Advincula In re: Paz E. Siguion Torres Paz E. Siguion Torres vs. Conchita Torres, et al. Chieng Yen vs. Republic of the Philippines CMS Estate, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. Vicente D. Sarmiento, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. Sabbun Maria Roa vs. L. Pasicolan, et al. Philippines International Surety Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs Ireneo V. Bernardo vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al. Angel Esler vs. Domingo Ellama, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. MRR Yard Crew Union, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. Union de Maquinistas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Indic, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Vicente Tamayo vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. Catalina B. Alberca vs. Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women In re: Doña Gabina Raquel vs. Aurea Matias Paz P. Arrieta, et al. vs. National Rice and Corn Corp., et al. Pedro San Diego vs. Auditor General Board of Assessment Appeals, et al. vs. Manila Electric Company In re: Jimmy Lee vs. Republic of the Phil. Natalio Ventosa vs. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. Juan N. Evangelista, et al. vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. Vigan Electric Light Company, Inc. vs. Public Service Commission Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Romulo Lopez, et al. vs. Luis-Gonzaga, et al. Urbano Sapico, et al. vs. Manila Oceanic Lines, Inc., et al. City Lumber, Inc. vs. Melencio R. Domingo, et al. In re: Kwan Kwock How vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Yap Chun vs. Republic of the Phil. In re: Ao Lin. vs. Republic of the Phil. Pan American World Airways vs. Paa Employees' Association (PTGWO), et al. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Equitable Banking Corp. Republic of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al. Ignacio Verdera, et al. vs. Jaime Hernandez, et al. Poblete Construction Company, et al. vs. Social Security Commission, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2l399 January 31, 1964

VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HON. ELOY B. BELLO, FLORENTINA ASUNCION, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PANGASINAN, ET AL.,respondents.

Adolfo Garcia for petitioner.
Jose P. Bengzon, Jr. for respondents.

PAREDES,J.:

On September 18, 1961, respondent Judge Hon. Eloy Bello entered an Order in Civil Case No. 14122, CFI of Pangasinan, entitled "Florentina Asuncion, et al. vs. Villa-Rey Transit, Inc., et al.", declaring the defendant Villa-Rey Transit, Inc., in default for failure to file its Answer to the complaint within the reglementary period. On September 23, 1961, a default judgment was rendered by respondent Judge, whereby it awarded to plaintiffs therein (now private-parties respondents) the amount of P70,100.00 as damages, as a result of the death of Felipe Tejada, husband and father of the private-parties respondents. Execution of the default judgment was issued on September 26, 1961, uponex-partepetition of the Tejadas, and the personal properties of the transportation company were levied upon.

Under date of September 27, 1961, the Villa-Rey Transit presented a motion to "Lift Order of Default", which was opposed by the respondents. September 30, 1961, a motion to lift the Order of Execution was also filed, which motion was denied in open court on October 2, 1961. On this same day, Villa-Rey Transit, submitted a Motion for New Trial or to Set Aside Judgment, requesting that same be heard on October 5, 1961. Said motion was opposed by the respondents. At the hearing on October 5, the respondent judge suggested to counsel for petitioner, to file a bond of P30,000.00 in order to stop the projected sale of the properties levied upon. Petitioner did not do anything about the court's suggestion, for it had already elevated the matter to this Court on a petition forCertiorari(G.R. No. L-18957), on October 4, 1961, contesting the Order of Default, Judgment of Default and Writ of Execution and praying for a preliminary writ of injunction to stop the sale. This Court issued the injunction, but on April 23, 1963, resolving thecertioraricase, it held among others, the following:

... . The respondent, in declaring petitioner in default, found that it did not file a responsive pleading within the period granted to it, and that the motion to dismiss (which by the way, is, not responsive pleading, Paestre & Carpio v. Jaurique 50 O.G. 112), did not pertain to petitioner, but to the defendants-incorporators. Granting, for purposes of argument, that these findings are erroneous, still it is a legal truism that not every error in, the proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or of fact, is abuse of discretion (Gov't v. Judge of First Instance, 34 Phil., 157). True, that petitioner had filed a motion for new trial and to set aside the default judgment, but before they could be resolved, petitioner had already brought the matter to this Court, on a petition forCertiorariwith Injunction, without giving the respondent court an opportunity to pass upon said motions, which act renders the filing of the present petition premature. Moreover, the trial court did not act with abuse of discretion, in issuing the orders complained of, for it is clear that they are in accordance with the facts and circumstances of record and the law on the subject.

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby DENIED, for lack of merits. The injunction issued is DISSOLVED, and costs taxed against herein petitioner VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC.1äwphï1.ñët

On May 4, 1963, petitioner, claiming that the above decision authorized the respondent Court, to take further cognizance of the Motion for New Trial or to Set Aside Judgment which it presented on October 2, 1961, he filed a "Motion toReset Hearingof Motion to Lift Order of Default and Motion for New Trial or to Set Aside Judgment" requesting May 11, 1963 as the date of the hearing. On May 11, 1963, the respondents opposed the Motions and instead petitioned for the execution of the decision. One of the grounds advanced by the respondents in their opposition is that the Motions submitted on October 2, 1961 were deemed automatically by the presentation with this Court, of the Petition forCertiorariwith Preliminary Injunction on October 4, 1961 (G.R. No. L-18957). The opposition and the petition for a writ of execution of the decision were set for hearing on May 23, 1963, which date respondent Judge handed down an order, of the following tenor:

Acting on the petition to execute decision filed by the plaintiffs, thru counsel, in the above-entitled case, it appearing that the execution ordered by this Court on September 26, 1961, has been suspended because of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. versus Honorable Eloy B. Bello, et al., G.R. No. 18957, and it appearing further that the Honorable Supreme Court had already decided the above-mentioned case on April 24, 1963, denying the petition for a writ ofcertiorariand dissolving the injunction heretofore issued, and finally, it being already mandatory on the part of this Court to re-issue a writ of execution, as prayed for, let a writ of execution issue against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs of the decision rendered by this Court on September 23, 1961.

On May 24, the date the Motion to Reset, Etc., was scheduled to be heard, the respondent Judge issued the following Order:

x x x x x x x x x

After this Court had declared the defendant, Villa-Rey Transit, Incorporated in default and had rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, the defendant, Villa-Rey Transit, Incorporated, filed the said motion to lift order of default and motion for new trial or to set aside judgment was submitted to this Court on October 2, 1961, and before this Court could resolve the said motion, it received a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-18957, entitled "Villa-Rey Transit, Incorporated v. Hon. Eloy B. Bello, et al., respondents"; in connection with a petition forcertiorarifiled with the Supreme Court wherein, it is alleged among other things that this Court gravely abused its discretion in declaring the defendant, Villa-Rey Transit, Incorporated, in default in rendering the judgment. Unfortunately, the defendant Villa-Rey Transit, Incorporated and petitioner of the above-entitled case in the Supreme Court, lost by virtue of the decision rendered in said case on April 23, 1963. In said decision, the Supreme Court said among other things:

However, the trial court did not act with abuse of discretion in issuing the orders complained of for it is clear that they are in accordance with the facts and circumstances of record and the law on the subject.

The said defendant in going to the Supreme Court without waiting for the resolution of this Court on its motion for new trial or to set aside judgment has abandoned said motion; and after losing in said Court now comes back to this Court to ask for relief by filing a petition forcertiorariwith the Supreme Court and consequently abandoning all its motions before this Court, it comes now to this Court and asks that this Court sets for hearing motions that have already been abandoned.

There being no motion to set aside or to reset, this Court denies the motion, dated May 24, 1963.

Petitioner brought the above order to this Court in a petition forMandamusandCertiorariwith Preliminary Injunction. An injunctive writ to stay the execution of the default judgment was issued on June 22, 1963.

In the petition at bar, Villa-Rey Transit contends that since this Court had said in the decision in G.R. L-18957, that the filing of thecertiorariproceeding therein was premature, then the lower court will have to pass or rule again, upon the Motion to Lift Order of Default and the Motion for New Trial or to Set Aside Judgment; and that in denying to set for hearing said motions, respondent judge has gravely abused his discretion and unlawfully neglected to perform an act or duty specially enjoined of him by law.

Under the facts obtaining in the case at bar, we believe the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion much less gravely. Respondent Judge, in denying the motion to set for hearing the two (2) motions which petitioner alleged to be pending with his court, said that there were no motions to set aside or to re-set. In arriving at this conclusion, respondent judge entertained the opinion that when Villa-Rey Transit filed the petition forcertiorariwith this Court on October 2, 1961, without having waited the result or resolution of the trial court on its motion to Lift Order of Default and Motion for New Trial and/or to set aside judgment, which petitioner itself had asked to be heard on October 5, 1961, it (Villa-Rey Transit) was deemed to have abandoned said motions and placed itself at the disposal of the Supreme Court. Whether the procedure adopted by the petitioner constituted an act of abandonment, does not seem to have much importance in the determination of the case at bar. What we are called upon to decide, is whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order contained of and whethermandamuswill lie.

We discern no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion in the actions of respondent judge. In our decision in G.R. No. L-18957, we stated that the orders complained of therein were not issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and that they were legal and valid. It was not the intention of this Court, by saying that the presentation of thecertiorariwas premature, to have the respondent court, pass upon the same orders again after we have ruled upon their legality and validity. Petitioner in filing case No. L-18957, repeatedly mentioned, ahead of the hearing set to determine the motions under consideration, simply wanted to gamble. Having lost, in this move, the petitioner tried to ask the help of the court whose resolution on the orders it refused to wait. Petitioner should not be permitted to take two courses of action at one time, with the end in view that if it losses in one, it still have the other. One cannot eat his cake and have it too.

Furthermore, when respondent judge in the case at bar, refused to set the hearing of the motions, there existed already a virtual denial to lift the order of default or to grant the now trial and/or to set aside judgment. The proper remedy would have been an appeal (I Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed. p. 485 and cases cited therein). The actuations of a court, done in the valid exercise of jurisdiction, like the case under consideration even granting that it committed and/or made erroneous conclusions of facts or of law, are not correctible bycertiorari. If, as stated by the respondent court, there is no motion to set aside or to re-set, to which we agree, it follows that there was no right of petitioner which it was excluded from exercising and there is no duty on the part of the respondent judge to perform. Clearly enough,mandamusdoes not lie.

The main case was for damages, resulting from a breach of contractual obligation of the petitioner as a transportation firm; and its principal defense in that case was the supposed negligence of a third party, not the deceased husband and father of the private-parties respondents. This being true, petitioner's remedy should not be to resist a valid execution, which has already been implemented by the levying of petitioner's personal properties, but to seek redress from the third party, if and when the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

IN VIEW HEREOF, the writ prayed for is denied; the order complained of should be, as it is hereby affirmed, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved, with costs against petitioner, in both instances.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.