1966 / Jul

G.R. No. L-26166 - JULY 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-26166July 30, 1966 Roque Javellana vs. Jose Querubin, et al. G.R. No. L-25853July 30, 1966 Pablo Festejo vs. Carmen P. Crisologo, et al. G.R. No. L-22440July 30, 1966 Florante Ileto, et al vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-22033July 30, 1966 Maria Flor V. Dirige vs. Victoriano Biranya G.R. No. L-21813July 30, 1966 Amparo G. Perez, et al vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-21642July 30, 1966 Social Security System vs. Candelaria D. Davac, et al. G.R. Nos. L-21156 and 21187July 30, 1966 Lourdes R. Osmeña vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-20996July 30, 1966 Alejo Abes, et al vs. Tomas Rodil, et al. G.R. No. L-20906July 30, 1966 Dominga Torres vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-20434July 30, 1966 Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19829July 30, 1966 In re: Francisco Co Keng. Co Keng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19779July 30, 1966 Rizal Labor Union, et al vs. Rizal Cement Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-19451July 30, 1966 In re: Wadhu Pribhdas Shahani. Wadhu Pribhdas Shahani vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19110July 30, 1966 In re: Antonio Yu. Antonio Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17919July 30, 1966 In re: Lim Quico. Go Im Ty vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17296July 30, 1966 Pantaleon S. Sarmenta vs. Mario S. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-18752July 30, 1966 Catalina Mendoza, et al vs. Temistocles C. Mella G.R. No. L-18349July 30, 1966 Municipality of Jose Panganiban, et al vs. Shell Company of the Phil. G.R. No. L-25716July 28, 1966 Fernando Lopez vs. Gerardo Roxas, et al. G.R. No. L-20038July 28, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Abrera, et al. G.R. No. L-25490July 27, 1966 Silvestre Domingo vs. Fernando Ramos G.R. No. L-20761July 27, 1966 La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-19344July 27, 1966 Agaton Bulaong vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26275July 26, 1966 Bartolome Barnido, et al vs. Mariano Balana, et al. G.R. No. L-25887July 26, 1966 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., et al vs. Capitol Subdivision, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-22713July 26, 1966 Teresita M. Consul vs. Jesus L. Consul G.R. No. L-22271July 26, 1966 Jose Abanilla, et al vs. Reinerio Ticao, et al. G.R. No. L-21889July 26, 1966 Teodoro V. Palisoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-21638July 26, 1966 Ong Siu, et al vs. Antonio P. Paredes, et al. G.R. No. L-21570July 26, 1966 Limpan Investment Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-21485July 26, 1966 Justino L. David vs. Angel Dancel, et al. G.R. No. L-20927July 26, 1966 In re: Minor Rossana E. Cruz. Rosalina E. Cruz vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20927July 26, 1966 Apolonia Anatalio, et al. vs. General Offset Press, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20811July 26, 1966 In re: Julio Lim. Julio Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20468July 26, 1966 General Offset Press, Inc. vs. Apolonia Anatalio, et al. G.R. No. L-19671July 26, 1966 Pastor B. Tenchavez vs. Vicente F. Escaño, et al. G.R. No. L-19643July 26, 1966 A. L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs. Froilan Japa G.R. No. L-19238July 26, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Marincho Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-18033July 26, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Macario Casalme G.R. No. L-16852July 26, 1966 Pilar L. de Valenzuela vs. Tito M. Dupaya G.R. No. L-16459July 26, 1966 In re: And Pue. Ang Pue vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21547July 15, 1966 Del Pilar Transit, Inc. vs. Jose M. Silva, et al. G.R. No. L-20117July 15, 1966 Restituto Tuanda vs. Simplicio Dionaldo, et al. G.R. No. L-18872July 15, 1966 In re: Minors of Perez Y Tuason G.R. Nos. L-19824, 19825 and 19826July 9, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-22394July 9, 1966 In re: Albino Ching. Albino Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20887July 8, 1966 Juan Ong vs. Isabelo Fonacier, et al. Isabelo F. Fonacier vs. Fernando A. Gaite G.R. No. L-22173July 7, 1966 Juan Justo vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-20099July 7, 1966 Parmanand Shewaram vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. G.R. No. L-21382July 2, 1966 Jose Arenajo vs. Julian E. Lustre, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Roque Javellana vs. Jose Querubin, et al. Pablo Festejo vs. Carmen P. Crisologo, et al. Florante Ileto, et al vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. Maria Flor V. Dirige vs. Victoriano Biranya Amparo G. Perez, et al vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Social Security System vs. Candelaria D. Davac, et al. Lourdes R. Osmeña vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Alejo Abes, et al vs. Tomas Rodil, et al. Dominga Torres vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In re: Francisco Co Keng. Co Keng vs. Republic of the Philippines Rizal Labor Union, et al vs. Rizal Cement Company, Inc., et al. In re: Wadhu Pribhdas Shahani. Wadhu Pribhdas Shahani vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Antonio Yu. Antonio Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Lim Quico. Go Im Ty vs. Republic of the Philippines Pantaleon S. Sarmenta vs. Mario S. Garcia, et al. Catalina Mendoza, et al vs. Temistocles C. Mella Municipality of Jose Panganiban, et al vs. Shell Company of the Phil. Fernando Lopez vs. Gerardo Roxas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Abrera, et al. Silvestre Domingo vs. Fernando Ramos La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Agaton Bulaong vs. People of the Philippines Bartolome Barnido, et al vs. Mariano Balana, et al. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., et al vs. Capitol Subdivision, Inc., et al. Teresita M. Consul vs. Jesus L. Consul Jose Abanilla, et al vs. Reinerio Ticao, et al. Teodoro V. Palisoc vs. Court of Appeals Ong Siu, et al vs. Antonio P. Paredes, et al. Limpan Investment Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Justino L. David vs. Angel Dancel, et al. In re: Minor Rossana E. Cruz. Rosalina E. Cruz vs. Republic of the Philippines Apolonia Anatalio, et al. vs. General Offset Press, Inc., et al. In re: Julio Lim. Julio Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines General Offset Press, Inc. vs. Apolonia Anatalio, et al. Pastor B. Tenchavez vs. Vicente F. Escaño, et al. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs. Froilan Japa People of the Philippines vs. Marincho Castillo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Macario Casalme Pilar L. de Valenzuela vs. Tito M. Dupaya In re: And Pue. Ang Pue vs. Republic of the Philippines Del Pilar Transit, Inc. vs. Jose M. Silva, et al. Restituto Tuanda vs. Simplicio Dionaldo, et al. In re: Minors of Perez Y Tuason Republic of the Philippines vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., et al. In re: Albino Ching. Albino Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines Juan Ong vs. Isabelo Fonacier, et al. Isabelo F. Fonacier vs. Fernando A. Gaite Juan Justo vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Parmanand Shewaram vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Jose Arenajo vs. Julian E. Lustre, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-26166 July 30, 1966

ROQUE JAVELLANA,petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE JOSE QUERUBIN, ET AL.,respondents.

Avelino V. Cruz for petitioner.
B. H. Tirol and A. T. Locsin for respondents.

REYES, J.B.L.,J.:

Roque Javellana petitions for a writ ofcertiorarito annul certain orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch II issued in its Civil Case No. 7350, granting execution pending appeal.

We glean from the record that the respondent court had rendered a decision against herein petitioner in the civil case aforementioned, and petitioner had filed due notice that it was appealing to the Supreme Court. Before appeal was perfected, and upon motion of the prevailing party (private respondent VMC Sugar Planter's Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc.) the court below, by order of May 28, 1966, directed that a writ of execution be issued pending appeal on the ground that the repeated continuances asked and obtained by defendant Javellana showed that "he does not intend to terminate this case as expeditiously as possible" (Petition, Annex E). His motion for reconsideration having been denied on June 9, 1966, Roque Javellana resorted to this Court, alleging that intent to delay was merely inferred and does not justify the immediate execution of the appealed judgment.

The petition must be denied.

First, it has been repeatedly ruled that the finding that the appeal is being taken for purposes of delay is good and sufficient reason for issuing a writ of execution despite the pendency of the appeal,¹"because dilatory tactics constitute a great drawback to the administration of justice, and cannot be countenanced by the Courts", and this is truer now than ever before. While intention to delay is not susceptible of direct proof, it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, and, in the present case, the Court properly so deduced from the repeated continuance sought by the petitioner, as enumerated in the order now complained of. The argument that if the continuance asked had been dilatory the court below should not have granted them, disregards the fact that trial courts have many cases demanding attention, so that the intent to delay in one case often becomes apparent only upon an overall review of the entire proceedings, from complaint to judgment. It may be observed, in passing, that with the resources placed at the disposition of trial attorneys by the Revised Rules (pre-trials, requests for admissions, discovery, interrogatories and depositions), there is much less reason now to delay trials in order to ready a party's evidence.

Petitioner invokes our rulings inLedesma vs. Judge Teodoro, 98 Phil. 232, andCity of Bacolod vs. Judge Enriquez, L-9775, May 29, 1957. But the factual background in both cases is entirely different from the one at bar. In the Ledesma case, the execution pending appeal was set aside because, on the face of the pleadings, the plaintiffs' action forquo warrantowas already barred, and what is more, the defendant had offered to put up asupersedeasbond but the trial court refused to allow him to do so. InBacolod vs. Enriquez, supra, this Court expressly found that "the assertion that it (the appeal) was intended merely for delay appears to be deduced only from the belief that the appeal was untenable". Contrariwise, the finding of intent to delay in the present case is amply supported by the numerous continuances secured by petitioner.

Then again, it is well-established thatcertiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, can not be resorted to whenever another adequate remedy is available.²In the case at bar, the petitioner, as would be appellant, could have stayed execution by tenderingsupersedeasbond, as provided by section 3 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, that would have enabled the trial court to stay execution, without prejudice to attacking the issuance of the execution in his brief on appeal. Having failed to avail himself of that remedy, the petitioner is not entitled tocertiorari.1äwphï1.ñët

In view of the foregoing, the writ ofcertiorariprayed for is denied, with costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.

Footnotes

¹Presbitero vs. Rodas, 73 Phil. 300; Iloilo Trading Center vs. Rodas, 73 Phil. 327; Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, L-12534, May 23, 1959.

²Claudio vs. Zandueta, 64 Phil. 812; Haw Pia vs. San Jose, 78 Phil. 238; Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 95 Phil. 360, 364; David vs. Miranda, L-6215, Sept. 28, 1954; Dans v. CA, 49 O.G. 2753; Dauz v. Elcosida, L-15950, April 20, 1961; Paringit v. Masakayan, 58 O.G. (No. 50) 8239.