EXEQUIELA PEREZ, AND PLACIDO MIRANDA, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., OZAETA, LICHAUCO & PICAZO, AND MAGNO GATMAITAN, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT O…

In Civil Case No. 15417 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIV,
entitled “Max Chamorro & Co. (later referred to as Chamorro) vs. Philippine
Ready-Mix Concrete Co., Inc. (later referred to as Ready-Mix), respondent Judge
Gatmaitan, presiding, plaintiff Chamorro by virtue of a petition of December 8,
1951, secured a writ of preliminary attachment of funds in the amount of
P4,464.50 belonging to defendant Ready-Mix but in the possession of the Bureau
of Public Works. But on motion of defendant Ready-Mix, the attachment was lifted
by the court in an order dated January 8, 1953, and acting on another motion of
the same Ready-Mix through its counsel who called attention to their attorney’s
lien filed on November 10, 1952, the same court in an order dated March 9, 1953,
ordered the delivery of the said sum to the attorneys of record of Ready-Mix.
Chamorro thru its counsel Atty. Calalang sought to annul the order discharging
the attachment, by means of a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court,
G. R. No. L-6572, on May 13, 1953, and he secured a writ of preliminary
injunction by virtue of a resolution of this Court dated May 29, 1953,
suspending compliance with the order of the trial court of March 9, 1953,
regarding the delivery of the funds in question to the attorneys of record of
Ready-Mix. Later, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari in a
decision promulgated May 14, 1954.

Shortly after the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Chamorro
vs. Ready-Mix, G. R. No. 1-6572 had become final, present petitioners
Placido Miranda and Exequiela Perez, who in the meantime had secured judgments
against the same Ready-Mix company ill Civil Cases Nos. 14360 and 14362 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in the amounts of P2,216.01 and
P15,387.71, respectively, although the latter case is on appeal to the Supreme
Court under G.R. No. L-7979, thru their counsel Atty. Calalang (the same counsel
for Chamorro in Civil Case 15417), sought to levy on the aforementioned funds of
Ready-Mix in the hands of the Sheriff, not yet delivered to the attorneys of
record of Ready-Mix because of the injunction issued by this Tribunal in the
certiorari case, G.R. No. L-6572, but which injunction was automatically
dissolved when said certiorari case was dismissed, by securing orders for the
issuance of alias writs of execution from the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch I, to enforce the judgments in their favor. Copies of these orders and
the corresponding alias writs were served on the Sheriff of Manila with a letter
of indication regarding the sum in the hands of the Sheriff already
mentioned.

On July 20, 1954, Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo, the same attorneys
who tried to enforce their attorney’s lien in Civil Case No. 15417 and who were
able to secure the order of March 9, 1953, directing the delivery of the said
sum to them but which order was not yet then carried out, filed before Branch
XIV, which was in charge of Civil Case No. 15417, an urgent ex-parte motion
asking for an order directing the Sheriff of Manila to comply immediately with
that order of March 9, 1953, further asking that the sum be released from
attachment and be delivered to them as attorneys lienors.

In an order dated September 25, 1954, Branch XIV, respondent Judge Gatmaitan
presiding, issued an order with the following dispositive part:

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the motion of July 30, 1954 appearing on page 207 of the
record of Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo, is partly granted and partly
denied; granted so far as it prays that the sum of P4,355.09 be ordered returned
to the defendant Philippine Ready-Mix Concrete Co. Inc.; denied to the extent
that it prays that the same be delivered to the attorneys-movants. (Annex 1 to
Motion to Dismiss)”

On motion of Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco and Picazo that the sum in question in
the hands of the Sheriff be delivered to them instead of the Ready-Mix,
incorporating in the said motion the conformity of Ready-Mix in an order dated
October 4, 1954, Judge Gatmaitan granted the motion saying:

“As prayed for, the Sheriff is ordered to make delivery of the money attached
amounting to P4,500, according to movant, to Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco &
Picazo.”

Then on October 8, 1954, counsel for plaintiff Chamorro in Civil Case No.
15417 filed a motion for reconsideration of the above order of October 4, 1954,
praying that his motion be set for hearing on Saturday, October 16, 1954. On
October 11, 1954, Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo filed an “Urgent motion
for resolution of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of October 8, 1954 and
opposition to said motion for reconsideration” waiving their right to the usual
three days notice and served copy of said motion on Chamorro’s counsel on the
same day stating that Chamorro’s motion for reconsideration was sham and
frivolous and prayed that said motion for reconsideration be considered upon the
hearing of said attorney’s motion and opposition on October 12, 1954. Judge
Gatmaitan set Chamorro’s notion for reconsideration for hearing on October 12th,
1954 at 1:30 p.m. but Chamorro’s counsel failed to appear and after waiting for
said counsel until 3:00 p.m. the court heard the motion for reconsideration and
denied it.

Chamorro’s counsel then filed another motion for reconsideration of the order
of denial of October 12, 1954 and set it for hearing on Saturday, October 16,
1954 but Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo on October 14, 1954 filed another
“Urgent motion for resolution of plaintiff’s urgent motion for reconsideration
of the order of October 12, 1954 and opposition to said urgent motion for
reconsideration”, alleging that said attorneys had to appear on October 16, 1954
in Quezon City in connection with a criminal case and requesting that Chamorro’s
motion be heard and resolved on October 15th at 11:30 p.m. Copy of this urgent
motion and opposition was served on Chamorro’s counsel on October 14th. At the
hearing. on October 15th, Atty. Pizarro, a. member of the law firm of Chamorro’s
counsel appeared but sought to postpone the hearing on the ground that Atty.
Calalang (Chamorro’s counsel) was sick. The postponement was denied and the
court equally denied the second motion for reconsideration in an order dated
October 15, 1954, which wan amended in an additional order on the same date,
both of which are quoted below:

“Considering the insistent opposition of Atty. De la.Fuente to further
postpone the resolution of the motion for reconsideration of Atty. Calalang,
which is set for tomorrow morning; and considering the arguments presented in
the motion for reconsideration which was filed on October 14, 1954, the Court
believes that the motion for reconsideration should be as it is hereby denied;
but in order to give Atty. Calalang a chance to stop the execution of this
present order, the Court orders that the Sheriff shall not make delivery to
Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo until tomorrow morning, so that just in
case Atty. Calalang should desire to secure relief from the Supreme Court by
preliminary injunction, he may have sufficient time to do so. If by 11:30
tomorrow morning no injunction is issued, the Sheriff is ordered to deliver the
money, . object of the motion for reconsideration unto Attys, Ozaeta, Lichauco
& Picazo. The representative of the Sheriff, Atty. de la Fuente, and Atty.
Pizarro of the Calalang, Pizarro & Sebastian Law Offices, are notified in
open court of this order.”

ADDITIONAL ORDER

“The Court has just been informed by telephone, that the Supreme Court does
not hold deliberations oil Saturdays, and this being the case, the Court,
motu propio, amends it order dictated a few minutes ago, so that instead
of 11:30 o’clock tomorrow, which is the deadline fixed by the Court for Atty.
Calalang to get a preliminary injunction, the Court fixes it at 2:00 o’clock,
Monday afternoon October 18, 1954; the order dictated a few minutes ago is
therefore amended accordingly, and the court now orders the Sheriff who is
present in Court to make the delivery by 2:00 o’clock Monday afternoon if no
preliminary injunction in secured up to that time. Let notice issue to Atty. de
la Fuente who has just left the courtroom,”

To annul the orders dated September 25, 1954, October 4, 1954, October 12,
1954 and October 14, 1954, Atty. Calalang filed the present petition for
certiorari against Ready-Mix, Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo and Judge
Gatmaitan, presiding, Branch XIV, Court of First Instance of Manila, not on
behalf of Chamorro, his client in Case 15417, but in representation of Placido
Miranda and Exequiela Perez, his clients and the plaintiffs in Civil Cases 14360
and 14362 in Branch I of the Manila Court, but because of the failure of Atty.
Calalang to secure the preliminary injunction by 2:00 o’clock p.m. on October
18, 1954, as stated in the additional order above quoted, respondent attorneys
were able to withdraw the sum in dispute from the Sheriff.

As observed by respondents in their memorandum, petitioners Miranda and Perez
were strangers in Civil Case No. 15417 between Chamorro and Ready-Mix, for they
were never parties therein. Neither were they intervenors. Their only connection
if any, with it, and if it can be so called, was that Atty. Calalang, counsel of
Chamorro was also their counsel in their cases Nos. 14360 and 14362, against the
same defendant Ready-Mix. Logically, the party called upon to challenge the
validity and propriety of the orders sought to be annulled in the present
certiorari proceedings was Chamorro because it was the party prejudiced by said
orders and which repeatedly petitioned the trial court for their
reconsideration, but not Miranda and Perez who as already stated, were strangers
to that case where the orders in question were issued.

The present case may be decided on the following question — whether or not at
the time of the alias writs of execution secured by petitioners Miranda and
Perez in Branch I of the Manila Court and placed in the hands of the Sheriff,
the funds in question in the hands of the said Sheriff were subject to levy, or,
whether they were in custodia legis in which case, they could not be
reached by the writs or execution. That these funds originally belonged to the
Ready-Mix is not disputed. As already stated, these funds were first attached by
Chamorro in Case 15417, in Branch XIV, and under said attachment the Sheriff of
Manila withdrew them from the Bureau of Public Works and held them subject to
the orders of the court (Branch XIV). Later the attachment was lifted and
thereafter Attys. Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo secured the order of March 9,
1953, directing the Sheriff to deliver said funds to the attorneys of record of
Ready-Mix. This order could not be complied with by the Sheriff because in the
meantime Chamorro had filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court and
had obtained a writ of injunction on. the Sheriff. Consequently, said funds
maybe said to have been frozen in the hands of the Sheriff. Still later, the
Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Chamorro which
automatically dissolved the writ of injunction against the Sheriff and which
served to release the funds in his hands.

Then came the alias writs of execution. If we bear In mind that all along,
the order of March 9, 1953, issued by Branch XIV directing the delivery of the
funds in the hands of the Sheriff to the attorneys of record of Ready-Mix still
stood and was in effect, then it is clear that the Sheriff was holding said
funds subject to the said order which covered them. The only thing lacking was
compliance with the said order. Viewed from this angle, it is evident that they
were in custodia legis because they were being hold by an officer of the
court subject to its orders and specifically covered by an express order. To
reach those funds by moons of alias writs of execution, specially when as in
this case, said writs were secured in a different branch (Branch I), it was
necessary to secure the permission of the Judge of Branch XIV that held them
under custody, namely, Judge Gatmaitan who at the time presided over said Branch
XIV. As a matter of fact, the alias writs of execution secured by Miranda and
Perez on June 24, 1954, were returned unsatisfied by the Sheriff, presumably on
the ground that the funds in his hands were not subject to levy.

Finding the present petition for certiorari to be without merit, the same is
hereby denied, with costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concurs.