Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50077:gr-132502-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:16:16+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 132502 and G.R. No. 132503 - BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
BENIGNO M. PUNO, JOSE CABACABA, NORA GONZALES, RICARDO CORTEZ, ELIZARDO PUNO, LARSEN TABBAR and ANTONIO MIRABUENO, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Former Special Twelfth Division, HON. BENJAMIN AG. VEGA, Judge, RTC of Manila, ATTY. RENAN V. SANTOS, as Liquidator, CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, EMILIANA C. DOBLON and CORAZON CORTEZ, Respondents.
MERCEDES P. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Former Special Twelfth Division, HON. BENJAMIN AG. VEGA, Judge, RTC of Manila, ATTY. RENAN V. SANTOS, as Liquidator, CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, EMILIANA C. DOBLON, and CORAZON CORTEZ, Respondents.
Gathered from the 94-folder records of the case are the following antecedent facts which are relevant to the determination of the merits of four questioned orders of a liquidation court, which orders were assailed via two separate petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before, but which were dismissed by, the Court of Appeals.
Sometime in December 1983, respondent Emiliana Doblon (Emiliana) and respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) entered into a contract of lease over 13 parcels of land located in Malinta, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
e.) [A]nd, ordering the defendant to pay the costs of this suit.
The decision having become final and executory, Branch 13 of the Manila RTC issued a writ of execution, on motion of Emiliana. The court later issued an alias writ of execution which was implemented by levying certain properties of PVB.
The Monetary Board of the Central Bank later placed in April 1985 PVB under receivership, and on June 7, 1985, it ordered its liquidation.
Acting on PVB's petition in IAC-G.R. SP No. 06558, the IAC, by Order of November 6, 1985, dismissed the same. PVB's motion for reconsideration having been denied, it filed a Petition for Review 7 with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-73162.
Please be informed that, by virtue of the partnership agreement between the undersigned and Mrs. Emiliana C. Doblon dated March 7, 1987x x x, one-half (1/2) of the properties the latter purchased at a public auction in Civil Case No. 23585, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42, now belong[s] to the undersigned although the Greenleaf Market, in particular, has been awarded/conveyed to the undersigned in a partition mutually agreed upon by the partiesx x x.
It is respectfully requested that the undersigned be informed or notified of any pleading/letter or transaction involving the said properties x x x or those purchased at public auction under Civil Case No. [84 -]23585; it [is] further requested, by virtue of the agreement or joint manifestation of undersigned and Emiliana C. Doblon in Civil Case No. 32311 Regional Trial court, Branch 39, Manila, x x x in which the undersigned is entitled to one[-half] (1/2) of whatever amount Emiliana C. Doblon's claim for deficiency judgment shall belong to the undersigned, the latter be likewise notified or informed of any dealings or transactions in connection therewith.
2. That the said Joint Manifestation does not reflect the truth and that said Atty. Puno and I are not, and were never "joint owners or claimants" in Civil Case No. -23585 before Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in the deficiency judgment, now subject of my claim in the above-entitled case.
3. That contrary to what appears in said Joint Manifestation, Atty. Puno and I were not, and were never joint owners "share and share alike (50-50)" over whatever amount I may be able to collect or recover in the instant case.
4. That the truth of the matter is that I am the EXCLUSIVE CLAIMANT and whatever collections of recoveries I may make EXCLUSIVELY and SOLELY belongs to me and Atty. Puno's claim as a joint owner or claimant has no basis whatsoever in fact or in law.
5. That Atty. Puno merely used to be my legal adviser while an RTC judge and became my counsel later, but he took advantage of his profession ' his knowledge of the law and his experience as a lawyer and clearly misled and even compelled me into signing said Joint Manifestation, the contents of which I do hereby disown and repudiate.
6. That Atty. Puno actually signed the said Joint Manifestation while still an RTC judge and could not have possibly bec[o]me my co-owner as falsely claimed by him.
And Emiliana filed on June 30, 1987 a complaint before the Makati RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 17154, to annul the written agreements showing her purported partnership with Puno,14 drawing Puno to file before the liquidation court a July 2, 1987 "Motion to Take Cognizance of Oppositor's Claim over Emiliana C. Doblon's Claim,"15 reiterating his claims in his above-quoted May 16, 1987 letter to the liquidator and mentioning Emiliana's repudiation of the partnership.
WHEREFORE, the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification and Payment of Movant's Monetary and Property Claims/Shares and the Amended Omnibus Motion both filed by Atty. Benigno Puno on November 2, 1989 and December 19, 1989 respectively, are hereby denied for lack of merit, as this Court finds the motion to disqualify him as claimant to be well-taken.
The motion for the issuance of a writ of injunction filed by Atty. Benigno Puno is likewise denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, the restraining order issued by this Court on February 12, 1990 is hereby vacated.
The motion to cite for contempt Atty. Benigno Puno and Mercedes Gonzales for violating the order of this Court issued on February 21, 1990, being sufficiently well taken, is hereby granted. Accordingly, Atty. Puno and Mrs. Gonzales are hereby found in contempt of court and fined ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or refusal to pay, hereby ordering to account within three (3) days from the receipt hereof for all the collections from the stallholders of the Greenleaf Market they have made from February 21, 1990 until the last day of their collections.
At the core of the present controversy is the issue of possession and ownership of the Greenleaf Market.
We agree with the respondent court that the High Court's ruling in PVB v. IAC [in G.R. No. L-73162, Nov. 13, 1989] x x x rendered null and void the auction sale of the Green Leaf Market to private respondent [Emiliana] Doblon, thus effectively depriving petitioners Puno and [Mercedes] Gonzales of any right whatsoever over the subject property which they may have subsequently derived from Doblon's defective title.
Petitioners Puno and Gonzales offer the argument that the compromise agreement entered into by and between Doblon and the PVB liquidator and subsequently submitted by the parties thereto to the respondent court for approval x x x cleansed whatever defects existed in the auction sale of PVB properties x x x as the said compromise agreement had the legal effect of "ratifying" the questioned sales and "superseding or replacing" the decision of the High Court in PVB v. IAC.
Such a contention is utterly devoid of merit. First, the questioned execution sales had already been pronounced by the Supreme Court x x x as null and void for being contrary to the provisions of existing laws and it is elementary in this jurisdiction that void and inexistent contracts can never be subject of any compromise nor are they susceptible of ratification. x x x Second, the subject matter of the compromise agreement between Doblon and the PVB liquidator never involved the question of ownership of the illegally auctioned properties x x x. Rather, what was referred to in the said compromise involved Doblon's right as a judgment creditor under Civil Case No. 84-23585 and not her rights as a bidder in the auction sales nullified by the Supreme Court.
The Motions for Reconsideration44 of Puno et al. and Mercedes having been denied by Resolution45 of December 18, 1997 by the appellate court, they filed the present Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus46 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
It may well happen, and not infrequently, that both remedies - the ordinary remedy of appeal, and the extraordinary one of certiorari (as a special civil action, not a mode of appeal) - are available to a party aggrieved by a judgment or final order of a Regional Trial Court (or of any inferior court, for that matter); that is to say, the final judgment or order appears to have been rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. In such a situation, the availability of appeal proscribes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari .
Procedural faux pas aside, the petitions fail.
Petitioners specifically challenge the appellate court's decision which affirmed the Orders of the liquidation court.
The order did not prohibit Puno et al. from exercising possession and management over the Market. Mercedes was in fact explicitly appointed, together with Corazon, to collect the daily rentals.54 Parenthetically, the right to collect rentals is an attribute of ownership,55 and not of possession. Petitioners cannot thus claim that Questioned Order 1 violated the Civil Code provisions on possession they cited.
The only constraint imposed on Mercedes, as well as on Corazon, was the obligation to deposit the collected rentals with the Branch Clerk of Court until such time that the right of Puno had been resolved by the court. This was to preserve the rights of the parties pending the determination of Puno's right to the Market.56 The order could not thus be considered arbitrary, whimsical, or despotic as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Neither may the liquidation court's disqualification of Puno as a claimant be deemed to have been issued without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
As for Puno's claims against PVB, viz: 1) his share in the deficiency judgment against PVB in favor of Emiliana, and 2) his exclusive right to the possession, management, collection, in and ownership over the Market,59 the appellate court correctly found that he has no right as a judgment co-creditor of PVB in Civil Case No. 84-23585.
The judgment under Civil Case No. 84-23585 was solely in favor of [Emiliana] Doblon and the execution sale of the Greenleaf Market sought to partly execute the said judgment was likewise made solely between Doblon and the PVB. x x x Petitioner [Puno] never had a participation in any of the foregoing and therefore possesses no rights over the subject property enforceable by him against PVB before the liquidation proceedings. x x x [T]he same is true with petitioner [Mercedes], who, incidentally, is raising her claim over the subject market only for the first time in her petition. If at all, their recourse is with [Emiliana] and not with PVB.60 (Emphasis supplied).
Puno's claim of the existence of a partnership with Emiliana, even if proven true, does not entitle him to share in the judgment awarded in Civil Case No. 84-23585. For, as Puno himself stated in his earlier quoted May 16, 1987 letter to liquidator Santos, his partnership agreement with Emiliana was forged on March 7, 1987, long after the trial court in Civil Case No. 84-23585 rendered judgment on September 20, 1984 in favor of Emiliana and against PVB.
Petitioners' argument that the rulings in Civil Cases No. 2881-V-88, "Emiliana C. Doblon v. Benigno Puno, et al.," No. 2886-V-88, "Greenleaf Market Vendor [sic], Malinta, Valenzuela, rep. by Attorneys-in-fact Corazon A. Cortez, et al." and No. 2887-V-88, "Leopoldo Torres v. Emiliana Doblon, et al." of the Valenzuela RTC; and that in Civil Case No. 17154, "Emiliana C. Doblon v. Benigno Puno" of the Makati RTC constitute res judicata as to the issue of his and Emiliana's possession, management, and ownership of the Market,67 together with Mercedes, does not persuade too.
There is no identity of parties between Civil Case Nos. 2881-V-88, 2886-V-88, and 2887-V-88 lodged in the Valenzuela RTC and Civil Case No. 17154 lodged in the Makati RTC on the one hand, and Sp. Proc. 85-32311 (liquidation case) on the other. PVB was not a party to Civil Case Nos. 2881-V-88, 2886-V-88, and 2887-V-88 and Civil Case No. 17154.70 In fact, its motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 2886-V-88 was denied.71 Civil Case Nos. 2881-V-88, 2886-V-88, and 2887-V-88 and Civil Case No. 17154 may have settled the rights of Puno and Mercedes to the possession, management, and ownership of the Market as against Emiliana,72 but not as against PVB.
Nor, on the same ground, did the appellate court act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the liquidation court's denial of Puno's motion to withdraw the salaries of the Market employees.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
1 Records, Folder 15, pp. 56-57.
2 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-73162, October 23, 1989, 178 SCRA 645, 648.
3 Records, Folder 1, pp. 1-8.
4 Id. at 11, 14.
5 Records, Folder 15, pp. 59-64.
6 Id. at 61-64, 66; rollo, p. 21.
7 Supra note 2 at 646.
8 Records, Folder 3, p. 230.
9 Civil Case No. 84-23585 had in the meantime been reraffled to Branch 42 of the Manila RTC.
10 Records, Folder 3, p. 230.
11 Records, Folder 15, p. 106.
12 Records, Folder 3, pp. 154-155.
15 Records, Folder 15, pp. 107-109.
17 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 2 at 650-651, 654.
18 CA rollo, CA G.R. Sp. No. 20786, at 341-342. Vide records, Folder 3, p. 229.
19 CA rollo, pp. 343-344.
22 Ibid; rollo, p. 322.
23 Records, Folder 15, pp. 1-8, 56-57, 66.
That among the assets of the Philippine Veterans Bank that were leased for twenty (20) years to claimant and his former business partner Emiliana C. Doblon is the Greenleaf Market which was later on purchased at public auction in October 30, 1985, in Civil Case No. 84-23585-RTC-Manila, Branch 42 and which property had been in the actual possession and management of the undersigned claimant and his former business partner Doblon since February 1984 and which remain under the exclusive possession and management of the undersigned claimant since March 1987 continuously up to the present time; (id. at 156).
32 CA rollo, CA G.R. Sp. No. 20786, p. 136; rollo, p. 323.
37 Ibid; vide CA rollo, CA GR Sp. No. 20786, pp. 227-232.
38 Id. at 107; id. at 237.
40 CA rollo, CA G.R. Sp. No. 22683, pp. 2-34.
42 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia, now a member of this Court, with the concurrence of Court of Appeals Associate Justices Emeterio C. Cui and Filemon H. Mendoza. CA rollo, CA G.R. No. 20786, pp. 387-403.
47 G.R. No. L-48302, November 23, 1988, 167 SCRA 577.
[P]etitioners Puno and Gonzales and their employees [have been] in actual and physical possess[ion] over the said market since 1984 continuously, peacefully and without interruption up to February 2, 1990 when the respondent Philippine Veterans Bank, thru its liquidator and agents, grabbed and forcibly took the collections in the market against the will and consent of the herein petitioners, thereby causing the starvation and suffering of the herein-petitioners-employees and their families because they were not paid of their salaries despite the fact that they continue to render services in the said market. (Id. at 36).
51 Articles 523-527, 529, 531-532, 537, 539. Vide rollo, pp. 35-38.
55 Vide Civil Code, Articles 441 ("To the owner belongs x x x (3) the civil fruits") and 442 ("x x x Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income").
56 Vide rollo, pp. 95-96.
59 Vide records, Folder 15, pp. 1-5.
60 CA rollo, CA G.R. Sp. No. 20786, pp. 400-402.
62 Vide Civil Code, Article 1409: " x x x [Void] contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived."
63 Rollo, pp. 34, 333.
64 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 2 at 653.
66 Vide rollo, pp. 21, 315-317; records, Folder 1, p. 6.
67 Rollo, pp. 33-34, 52-58.
68 Republic v. Yu, G.R. No. 157557, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 416, 420.
70 Vide records, Folder 3, p. 261; rollo, p. 108.
72 Vide id. at 113-114, 134; records, Folder 15, pp. 73-75.
73 Vide rollo, p. 109.
76 Vide records, Folder 3, pp. 261-266.
77 Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91332, July 16, 1993, 224 SCRA 576, 596.
78 Vide rollo, pp. 105-106.
80 Vide Kalilid Wood Industries Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79723, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 735, 745.
82 Vide Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sections 1 and 3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.