G.R. No. L-11143. February 26, 1958

On February 6, 1951, petitioner filed with the
municipal court of Manila a complaint against Pedro Basilio to collect
the sum of P1,336.25 representing the unpaid purchase price of
merchandise sold to the latter on credit; but while the action was
pending1, Basilio died and proceedings for the settlement of his estate
were instituted in the court of first instance of Leyte and docketed
there as S.P. No. 409, In Re; Intestate Estate of Pedro Basilio. After
proper proceedings, on June 18, 1952, letters of administration was
issued to respondent Pilar B. Basilio, widow of the deceased, and on
the same date the court entered an order requiring the persons haying
money claims against the deceased to file them within six months from
June 25, 1952; and pursuant to this order, petitioner filed in said
special proceedings its claim in the sum of P536.66 representing the
balance of the original indebtedness of the deceased Pedro Basilio.

On August 20, 1952, respondent administratrix, in her answer, admitted the claim of the herein petitioner and on August 23, 1952,
the same was approved and allowed by the court. No payment was,
however, made, so, upon motion, the lower court ordered the respondent
administratrix to sell, within 30 days, the properties of the intestate
to pay the claim in question. The respondent administratrix, however,
failed again to settle the aforesaid claim, and the petitioner was
constrained to file on May 23, 1955, a motion to urge the respondent
administratrix to pay said claim or to sell the properties of the
estate if there were no sufficient funds available to satisfy the
claim. This motion was considered favorably, but the respondent Judge,
in his order of June 4, 1955, granted the respondent administratrix an
extended time until June 30 within which to pay petitioner’s claim.
Again she failed to make payment, hence on December 27, 1955,
petitioner filed another motion praying the court to compel the
administratrix to settle the claim and to declare here in contempt for
her failure to comply with previous orders requiring her to pay the
claim in question. Accordingly, on January 9, 1956, respondent Judge
required the respondent administratrix to appear before the court and
to inform whether she had already paid petitioner’s claim and, in case
of failure to have done so, to explain why she should not be punished
for contempt of court. On January 25, 1956, respondent administratrix
filed a reply to the motion for contempt, explaining that her failure
to settle the claim in question was not due to her unwillingness but to
the impossibility of raising the necessary amount to pay the claim, and
asserting at the same time that petitioner Elizalde Trading Corporation
“should not press for the collection of its claim of P536.66 in view of
the fact that the Teresa Marble Works (formerly Florentine Craft Works)
under the management of Mr. Amberti, thru its representative in
Tacloban City, Mr. Cagampan, obtained a credit of about P1,000.00 for
gasoline, oil, and diesel fuel at the time when the Elizalde Trading
Corporation was purchasing surplus barges at Guiwan, Samar. This
account has remained unpaid up to now, but unfortunately the receipts
for the same had been burned when the establishment of the deceased,
Pedro Basilio, was burned. However, the said Elizalde Company knows of
this account in view of a letter sent by the deceased to request
payment of the same considering that the Florentine Craft Works (Teresa
Marble Works) belongs to the said company.” And by virtue of these
allegations, she submitted that she should not be punished for contempt
for the reason that “her failure to satisfy the claims against the
estate are due to circumstances beyond her control and not to mere
abandonment of duty or negligence.” Acting upon this motion, the
respondent Judge issued on January 26, 1956, an order which in effect
sustained the aforequoted belated counterclaim of the respondent
administratrix, holding therein, among things, the following:

“Considering
that the claim of the Elizalde Trading Corporation is subject to a
counterclaim by the administratrix in an amount in excess of the said
claim, and the claim of the Philippine National Bank is pending
resolution by this Court, only the claim of the Caltex is left to be
settled without question.”

Thereupon, on
February 4, 1956, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
foregoing order, alleging “that the alleged belated counterclaim
asserted against the herein petitioner is utterly fictitious and that
even assuming, without admitting, that the alleged claim of the
administratrix against herein claimant actually exists, the failure of
the administratrix to allege the same in offset to the claim of herein
claimant has barred the administratrix’s claim forever
pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.” On August 4,
1956, respondent Judge denied this motion in an order which reads as
follows:

“While it is true that the claim of
Elizalde & Co. was approved by the court, thru the Hon. Judge Juan
L. Bocar, on August 23, 1952, and the offsetting of claim of the
administratrix against that credit has been presented quite late, the
Court believes that in the interest of justice and equity and
considering that Elizalde & Co. has shown fairness in all its
dealings, particularly in cases like the present, where the estate has
very few properties and the interested heirs are minors entitled to
support an education, it would seem to be part of fairness and equity
for the Court to allow the administratrix to have a chance to prove its
offsetting claim against Elizalde & Co., since after all the latter
is believed to be possessd of their own evidence to disprove it.

‘Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. (Alonso vs.
Villamor, 16 Phil. 318, 322). Anything that may preclude a party from
presenting with fullness the facts of his case, should be brushed
aside, if that can be done without unfairness to the other side, a
legitimate desire to take advantage of an opponent’s mistake may be
legitimate but cannot be encouraged. (Dacanay et al. vs. Lucero, 76 Phil., 139, 42 O. G. 2119-21; Sec. 2, Rule 17)’

Hence
the motion for reconsideration is denied and the court sets for August
25, 1956, the reopening of the Elizalde Claim only to the extent of
permitting the administratrix an opportunity to prove her offsetting
claim after which, if the same is found groundless, the Court will
order her to pay Elizalde & Co. at the earliest practicable date or
to dispose of such property of the estate sufficient to pay the same
claim.”

On August 17, 1956 petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of this order, but it was denied, hence the
filing of the present petition wherein petitioner prays that “a writ of
certiorari be issued annulling and setting aside the order of the
respondent Judge dated August 4, 1956 and ordering the respondent
Administratrix forthwith to pay the petitioner’s P536.66 claim which
was approved by a final, executory and unassailable order of August 23,
1952, with costs against the respondents.”

From the facts above stated it could readily be seen (a)
that petitioners claim for P536.86 duly filed in the intestate
proceedings of the deceased Pedro Basilio was approved by the lower
court on August 23, 1952, and since then up to the issuance of the disputed order of August 4, 1956, no appeal nor any steps had been taken by the respondent administratrix to have the approval of said claim set aside; (b)
that during the intervening time, several orders were issued by the
lower court requiring the respondent administratrix to pay said claim,,
but the latter, for one reason or another, was unable to comply with
them, which compelled the petitioner to file several petitions praying
that the respondent administratrix be declared in contempt; (c)
that the order of the court approving the claim in question has become
final and was executory before the respondent administratrix asserted
on January 25, 1956 a counterclaim consisting of an alleged credit in
favor of the intestate estate for the sum of P1,000 for gasoline, oil
and diesel fuel furnished, not to petitioner, but to Florentine Craft
Works (Teresa Marble Works) ; and (d) that the counterclaim in
question refers to an obligation contracted by the Florentine Craft
Works or (Teresa Marble Works) and that it was filed out of the time
allowed by Section 10 of Rule 87, which provides that the executor or
administrator should answer any claim within 5 days after service of
copy thereof and that upon his failure to do so, the counterclaim to,
or any claim in offset of, creditor’s claim shall be barred forever.
Obviously, having all these facts in view, the counterclaim presented
by the respondent administratrix which gave way to the opening of
petitioner’s, claim, cannot be validly and legally entertained by the
respondent Judge for the simple reason that, at the time of its filing,
there was already a final and executory order of the court approving
petitioner’s claim and said counterclaim was based on an obligation
contracted, not by the herein petitioner, but by another person.
Respondent administratrix claims, however, that, in equity, her belated
counterclaim should be given way, but this contention is clearly
untenable under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
Certainly, equity cannot be availed of in the present case for, as
stated above, petitioner’s claim has not been contested by the
respondent administratrix—instead, its legality has been admitted when
it was submitted to court for approval; the order approving1 such claim
has become final and executory, and the counterclaim refers to an
obligation with which petitioner has nothing to do.

Wherefore, the order of the respondent Judge, dated August 4, 1956,
is hereby annuled and set aside and the respondent administratrix
ordered forthwith to pay petitioner’s P536.66 claim, with cost against
her.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.