Limpin vs Iac 161 Scra 83

8/10/2019 Limpin vs Iac 161 Scra 83

1/11

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 70987 May 5, 1988

GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR. and ROGELIO M. SARMIENTO, petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and GUILLERMO PONCE, respondents.

Danilo A. Basa for petitioner.

R E S O L U T I O N

NARASA, J.:

I. Motions Before the Court

There are several otions before the !ourt for resolution. These are"

#$ a %motion for contempt% dated October #&,#'() 1filed b* private respondent +uillero Poncepra*in that -on. ude Teodoro /eltran of /ranch )( of the Reional Trial !ourt of 0ue1on !it* 2/ranch)($, and petitioner Roelio M. Sariento be cited and punished for contept"

a$ ude /eltran, for alleedl* 2#$ %hinderin the enforceent of a final 3udent ofthe Supree !ourt4% 25$ %issuin a 6rit of in3unction restrainin and en3oinin the

ipleentation of a 7rit of Possession issued pursuant to the decision of theSupree !ourt affirin that of the Interediate 8ppellate !ourt4% and 29$%interferin 6ith the la6ful 6rits and orders of a co:e;ual and coordinate /ranch ofthe RT! of 0ue1on !it*4% and

b$ Sariento < and ;uite necessaril* albeit ipliedl*, his counsel, 8tt*. Danilo /asafor alleedl* 2#$ %filin a case involvin the sae part* over the sae issues after anadverse decision had been rendered aainst hi b* the Supree !ourt4% and 25$ for%resistin a la6ful 6rit, process or coand of a !ourt%4

5$ a %petition/motion to declare Guillermo Ponce in contempt% filed b* the petitioners= counsel, 8tt*.Danilo /asa under date of Deceber 5>, #'() !for havin alleedl* %fooled the Reional Trial !ourt,

/ranch (&, presided b* ude 8ntonio P. Solano in !ivil !ase No. 0:9?)5&4 the -onorable !ourt of8ppeals in 8!:+.R. No. ?5@#&4 the -onorable Supree !ourt in +.R. No. )?'() ... 2into believin$ thathe had the riht to foreclose the lots covered b* T!T Nos. '5(9&, '5(9), '5(9' and '5(>?, 6hen in truthand in fact he had no riht to do so ...%4 this, b* havin %deliberatel* concealed the fact of 2his$ donationand the availent of deductions fro estate taAes% as reards said lots4

9$ a "petition to declare Attorneys Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan Philip Si!frid A. ortune#u!enio $indo and #rnesto $. Pineda in contempt"dated anuar* #@, #'((, "and an %urent


2/11

anifestation 6ith pra*er4additional !round for contempt etc." dated Februar* #5, #'(( #both filed b* thesae 8tt*. /asa, it bein claied that said attorne*s had alleedl* ?',#&(.(',% thus enablin Ponce to perpetrate %a fraud aainst theReional Trial !ourt presided b* ude ... Solano, the !ourt of 8ppeals and ... 2theSupree$ !ourt4

2b$ even instituted +.R. No. )'?'( %to stop ude /eltran fro actin in 0:@###),%and filed a otion for contept aainst said ude and petitioner Sariento4

>$ a %motion for inhi%ition% dated Deceber ', #'() filed also b* 8tt*. /asa, 5addressed to theSupree !ourt ustices %6ho have been associated 6ith the ... la6 fir 2S*cip, Sala1ar, -ernande1 and+ataitan$ or ... have children 6ith the said la6 fir4%

@$ three 29$ otions also filed b* 8tt*. /asa, essentiall* seeBin reconsideration of this !ourt=s finaland eAecutor* 3udent of anuar* 9?, #'(), $variousl* entitled 2a$ %Supplement to the Ans&er '(o theContempt Char!e)* Motion to Amend Decision / +rders to Conform to $a& and ,ustice"dated Deceber9#, #'() 72b$ %Motion to Modify alter the Decision to Harmonize &ith ,ustice and the factsdated anuar*), #'(( 8and 2c$ %-r!ent Motion &ith Prayer* Additional Ground for Contempt* and Motion to Alter/Modify,ud!ment to Conform to ,ustice and the acts% dated Februar* #5, #'((49and

&$ an %ur!ent motion to order issuance of alias &rit of possession% dated anuar* #', #'((, filed b*respondent Ponce. 10

II.Antecedents

So that these otions a*be be placed, and resolved, in proper perspective, it 6ill be necessar* to

undertaBe a brief stateent of the aterial antecedents.

8. (his Courts inal and #ecutory Decision of ,anuary 01 2345

This !ourt=s decision of anuar* 9?, #'() 11disissed the appeal on certiorari taBen b* petitionersipin and Sariento fro the 3udent of the Interediate 8ppellate !ourt proulated on Februar*5(, #'(@. The dispositive part of that 3udent of the 8ppellate !ourt reads as follo6s"

7-CRCFORC, the orders dated October #&, 1!#'(9 and Deceber #', #'(9 of therespondent !ourt, 1"so far as the* den* the confiration of the sale of the lots forerl*covered b* T!T Nos. '5(9& and ' 5(9), are SCT 8SIDC and the respondent court ishereb* ORDCRCD to confirm the sale and issue a &rit of possession to the petitioner

&ith respect to the aforesaid lots su%6ect to the e7uity of redemption of the respondent8o!elio 9. Sarmiento. 7ithout !osts 1#

In its o6n Decision of anuar* 9?, #'(), this !ourt cateoricall* declared inter aliathat lots involved in the action before ude Solano$ and the availent ofdeductions fro estate taAes,% and the resultant loss of an* riht on his 2Ponce=s$ part to foreclosethe ortae on said lots. 8tt*. /asa and Sariento 6ould also have Ponce=s la6*ers ad3uded asco:conteners for Beepin an %uneAplained silence% about these facts and even atteptin to stopude /eltran fro actin in !ivil !ase No. 0:@###) 6here these facts have been placed inissue. "0Sariento and /asa base their accusations on docuents tendin to prove the alleed donationand the availent of taA credit on account thereof produced at a hearin on October #>, #'() in !ivil!ases Nubered 0:@###) and 0:@#5?& b* the /ureau of Internal Revenue in response to

subpoena induces tecum"1

The truth ho6ever is that the atter of this alleed donation b* Ponce 2of specified receivablesinclusive of the ortae on the four H>#= lots in ;uestion$, and the conse;uent loss b* hi and hissons of the riht to foreclose the ortae on those four 2>$ lot 6as, as above alread* pointed out,raised before this !OERT "!and upon in the Decision of anuar* 9?, #'(). ""The fact is too, that aspointed out in Ponce=s !oent dated Februar* ##, #'((, "#that precise atter of the donation 6as alsoeAtensivel* discussed" 2#$ in Ci:il Case


7/11

It appears that /asa=s and Sariento=s %petitionotion=%to have Ponce punished for contept is6ithout foundation, based on half:truths and isrepresented facts, and 6as resorted to erel* as aode of neutrali1in the earlier chare aainst Sariento 2and /asa$ for contept, apparentl* in line6ith the apocr*phal aAio, %The best defense is offense.% The disuised desin appears to be to soeAhaust the !ourt 6ith a 6elter of voluinous pleadins and docuents in relation to the conteptchare aainst Ponce, that 6hen it finall* sa6 throuh the sophistr* and subterfue and disissed

that chare, it the sophistr* and subterfue 6ould have forotten Ponce=s o6n chare of conteptaainst Sariento and /asa. /e this as it a*, the filin and attepted substantiation of thisbaseless chare cannot but constitute an additional act of contuac*.

V.Atty. Basas Second (hird and ourth Motions or 8econsideration

In *et another stratae to re:ventilate the sae stale issues 6hich he had revived in the t6o 25$actions pendin in the /eltran !ourt, 8tt*. /asa has s6aped this !ourt in this case 2+.R. No.)?'()$ 6ith pleadins or otions 6hich are nothin but thinl* asBed otions for reconsideration ofthe final and eAecutor* 3udent of anuar* 9?, #'():either souht to be passed off as a ere%suppleent to the ans6er 2to the contept chare%$ and an %additional round for contept,% orartfull* captioned as otions %to odif*alter the decision to haroni1e 6ith 3ustice and the facts%

and %to alterodif* 3udent to confor to 3ustice and the facts.%

"8These otions for reconsiderationare plainl* 6ithout erit. Indeed, havin been filed after denial of a first and 6ithout prior leave of court,the* should b* established rule be as the* are hereb* eApuned fro the record. "9

a.Atty. Basas misconduct n acie Curiae

/ut a fe6 6ords about those otions are not out of place, speciall* as the* deonstrate /asa=sconduct before the !ourt. In those otions, /asa stubbornl* reiterates the sae aruent alread*re3ected b* this !ourt that Sariento 6as never a part* in !ivil !ase No. 0:9?)5&. -e atteptsho6ever to ive it respectabilit* b* theori1in that this had prevented Sariento fro ovin for ne6trial in that case on the round of %ne6l* discovered evidence% < this evidence obviousl* bein 6hathe dees to be additional proof of the alleed donation and availent of taA deductions on accountthereof < blithel* disreardin the fact that the issues involvin these atters had alread* been

decided adversel* to hi and his client b* final and eAecutor* 3udent, or 6ere, in an* case,ineffectual to erase the superiorit* of Ponce=s rihts over the propert* in ;uestion as aainstSariento and ipin.

8ain closin his e*es to the authoritative affiration b* this !ourt of the correctness of the8ppellate !ourt=s conclusion that %the rihts and interests of petitioners ipin and Sariento to thepropert* in ;uestion 2lots covered b* T!T Nos. '5(9& and '5(9)$ are subordinate to those ofrespondent Ponce, 6ho holds a prior and senior lien,% as 6ell as its conse;uent direction to the Trial!ourt to confir the sale at public auction conducted b* Sheriffs !achero and Tananco and issue a6rit of possession over the lots in favor of +uillero Ponce, /asa theori1es that another proceedinust still be had to challene Sariento=s titles to the sae propert*. The aruent is toouneritorious to deserve consideration at all.

Of the sae ilB is his aruent in proof of the theor* that Ponce and his attorne*s had %deliberatel*6ithheld% certain docuents relative to the donation. Epon the considerations alread* set out in nolittle detail earlier in this opinion, the aruent 6ill be spurned as carr*in absolutel* nopersuasiveness 6hatever.

/asa 6ould also foist upon the !ourt the theor*, palpabl* indefensible, that since Ponce hadparticipated in the public biddin at the foreclosure sale and had in fact offered the hihest bid, he


8/11

had lost the character of a ortae creditor and had becoe a %ere bidder.% The less said aboutthis theor*, the better.

/asa=s adaantl* insistent attepts to raise issues lon since laid to rest b* final and eAecutor*3udent of no less than the hihest tribunal of the land, his presentation of iisleadin aruents,not onl* eApose a deliberate plan to frustrate the eAecutor* and clear directions of this !ourt and

those of the 8ppellate !ourt, but constitute an un6arranted iposition on the tie and intellience ofthis !ourt. /* these tactics, he has been able to dela* eAecution of this !ourt=s final and eAecutor*

3udent for several onths no6. -e should no loner be peritted to do so. 8nd he should bepunished for havin done so, 6ith evident preeditation. -is acts speaB for theselves, resipsalo;uitur. #0The* clearl* constitute isbehavior before the !ourtin facie curiae, suaril*punishable in accordance 6ith Section #, Rule )# of the Rules of !ourt.

VI. (he Motion for nhi%ition

The otion for inhibition of those ebers of the !ourt %6ho have been associated 6ith the ... la6fir 2S*cip, etc.$ or have children 6ith the said la6 fir,% is also 6ithout erit. The association of oneof the !ourt ebers 6ith that fir, severed for ore than seventeen 2#)$ *ears no6, is not round

for dis;ualification. 8nd eAcept for forer !hief ustice !laudio TeehanBee, 6ho opted not to taBepart in the deliberations on the present incidents, no eber of the Division has an* children in saidla6 fir directl* sinin pleadins or otions or other6ise personall* appearin, in behalf of an*part* to the case. It is oreover, settled that a otion for dis;ualification ust be denied 6here filedafter a eber of the !ourt has alread* iven an opinion on the erits of the case, the rationalebein that %a litiant cannot be peritted to speculate upon the action of the !ourt ... 2onl* to$ raisean ob3ection of this sort after decision has been rendered. #1

VII. (he Motion for an Alias rit of Possession

7hat has thus far been said in this Resolution should aBe clear 6hat the disposition of the otionfor an alias6rit of possession should be. The 6rit ust issue. Its issuance is inisterial andandator*, bein coanded b* final and eAecutor* 3udent of the hihest !ourt of the land,affirin in totothat of the second hihest court. The 6rit ust issue iediatel*.

VIII. orum Shoppin! %y Sarmiento and Basa

So, too, 6hat has thus far been said ore than apl* deonstrates Sariento=s and /asa=s acts offoru shoppin. -avin failed to obtain the reliefs to 6hich the* 6ere not entitled in the first placefro the %Solano !ourt,% the !ourt of 8ppeals, and the Supree !ourt, the* subse;uentl* institutedt6o 25$ actions in the %/eltran !ourt% for the sae purpose, violatin in the process the rule aainstsplittin causes of action. #!The sanction is inescapable" disissal of both actions, for ross abuse ofthe 3udicial processes.#"

7-CRCFORC, the !ourt $ DCNICS the 2a$ %Motion for Inhibition% dated Deceber ', #'(#, and 2b$ the =Petition to Declare8ttorne*s S*cip Sala1ar -ernande1 and +ataitan, Philip Sifrid 8. Fortun Cuenio indo andCrnesto . Pineda in !ontept% dated anuar* #@, #'(( 2inclusive of the urent otion described inite Hc of the neAt precedin pararaph$4

@$ ORDCRS the Reional Trial !ourt of 0ue1on !it*, /ranch (&, presided over b* -on. ude8ntonio Solano,forth&ith upon ser:ice of notice of this 8esolution and &ithout need of any furtherorder from this Courtto ISSEC 8 7RIT OF POSSCSSION in !ivil !ase No. 0:9?)5&, in favor of+uillero Ponce conforabl* 6ith this !ourt=s decision dated anuar* 9?, #'() in relation to that ofthe 8ppellate !ourt thereb* affired, and other6ise to carr* the sae into full force and effect, this

portion of this Resolution bein declared, to avoid an* doubt on the atter, tobeimmediatelyeecutory4 and

&$ ORDCRS the DISMISS8 of the coplaint in both !ivil !ases No. 0:@###) and 0:@#5?& pendinin the sala of ude Teodoro /eltran, /ranch )(, and the NEIFI!8TION 8ND SCTTIN+ 8SIDC ofthe restrainin order issued b* said ude on une 55, #'() and the order of preliinar* in3unctiondated ul* #?, #'() as 6ell as the 6rit issued in pursuance thereto.

Cruz Gancayco and Grio=A7uino ,,. concur.

%oo&no&'(

# Rollo, pp. 9(? et se;.

5 d., pp. >?9 et se;.

9 d., pp. @5& et se;.

> SCC additional rollo 2folder$


10/11

@ Rollo, p. >(?.

& The petitioners= otion for reconsideration of the 3udent 6as denied 6ith finalit*b* the !ourt=s Resolution dated 8pril 5), #'() 2Rollo, p. 9&9$4 and Cntr* of udent6as ade on une #, #'() 2Rollo, p. 9&>$.

) Rollo, pp. >'# et se;.

( d., pp. @# 5 et se;.

' SCC additional rollo 2folder$.

#? Rollo, p. @?9.

## #>) S!R8 @#&:@5(.

#5 The correct date is October 5&, #'(9.

#9 The Reional Trial !ourt in 0ue1on !it*, the orders havin been proulated in!ivil !ase No. 0:9?)5&.

#> Rollo, p. 5&4 ephasis supplied.

#@ d., p. 9#(:9#'.

#& d., p. 95?:95#.

#) d., p. 955.

#( d., p. 9&>.

#' See Rollo, p. 59.

5? d., pp. 9(#:9(5,

5# d., p. 9(&.

55 SCC footnote #>, supra.

59 d.

5> Rollo, p. @5&.

5@ SCC par. I, #$, b$, pp. #:5, supra.

5& Rollo, pp. 9'# et se;.

5) SCC footnote # @, supra.


11/11

5( SCC footnote #&, supra.

5' Rollo, pp. >)9 et se;.

9? SCC Rollo, pp. @5& et se;.

9# Rollo, pp. >?9 et se;4 SCC also Erent Manifestation 7ith Pra*er4 etc., datedFebruar* #5, #'(( filed b* 8tt*. /asa.

95 8lthouh not averred in the basic petition for revie6 on certiorari.

99 See footnote # ) and related teAt, supra.

9> SCC additional rollo 2folder$.

9@ Rollo, p. @5>

9& d., pp. @5?:@59.

9) SCC their Repl* to the Opposition dated Feb. &, #'((, in additional rollo.

9( See p. 5, supra.

9' Sec. #, Rule @5, Rules of !ourt.

>? !onsolidated /anB L Trust !orp. v. -on. !apistrano, 8M No. R:&&:RT!, March#(, #'((4 Prudential /anB v. -on. !astro, 8M No. 5)@&, Nov. #5, #'()4 In Re.7enceslao aureta, #>' S!R8 @)?4 !atha* Pacific 8ir6a*s v. -on. Roillo, #>5S!R8 5&54 People v. -on. ## Valen1uela. #9@ S!R8 )#5.

># Prudential /anB v. -on. !astro, 8M No. 5)@&, Nov. #5, #'(), supracitin8raneta v. Dinlasan, (> Phil. 9&( 6hich, in turn, cited +overnent v. -eirs of 8bella,>' Phil. 9)>.

>5 Secs. 9 and >. Rule 5, Rules of !ourt.

>9 Sec. #), Interi Rules and +uidelines, an. ##, #'(9 in re the udiciar*Reorani1ation 8ct4 /uan v. ope1, #>@ S!R8 9>, citin C. Ra1on, Inc. v. Phil. Port

8uthorit*, +.R. No. )@#'), ul* 9#, #'(&, and People v. !8, #?# S!R8 >@?, >&9:>&>.

Limpin vs Iac 161 Scra 83

Documents

Transcript of Limpin vs Iac 161 Scra 83