MARIANO T. NASSER, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MALCOLM SARMIENTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, BRANCH I, AURORA RIVERA…

These are petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition
filed by petitioner Mariano T. Nasser, in G.R. No. L-32945 entitled
“Mariano T. Nasser v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Malcolm Sarmiento etc., Aurora
Rivera Canlas, Paterno R. Canlas and Tomas Centillas” seeking: (1) to annul and set aside: (a) the decision*
of the Court of Appeals dated October 7, 1970 in CA No. 45317-R between the
same parties, dismissing the petition for lack of merit and dissolving the writ
of preliminary injunction issued on June 17, 1970 and (b) the resolution dated
December 4, 1970 denying the motion for reconsideration and (2) to restrain or
enjoin the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental from
implementing the Order of Attachment issued by the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga in Civil Case No. 3641 and in G.R. No. L-32946 entitled
“Mariano T. Nasser, et. al. v. The Court of Appeals, Paterno R. Canlas,
Aurora Rivera-Canlas, Tomas Centillas and the Chief of Police of San Isidro,
Davao Oriental seeking: (1) to annul
and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 10, 1970 in
CA-G.R. No. 44856-R entitled “Aurora Rivera-Canlas et al. v. Hon. Judge Vicente
P. Bullecer, et al.” which declared permanent the Amended Writ of Preliminary
Injunction it issued on June 16, 1970 directing the CFI of Davao Oriental to
refrain from enforcing the writs of preliminary injunctions it issued in Civil
Case No. 3641 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and (2) to restrain or
prohibit: (a) the Court of Appeals from
enforcing the amended writ of preliminary injunction it issued on June 16, 1970
and (b) Tomas Centillas, Chief of Police of Governor Generoso and the Chief of
Police of San Isidro, both of Davao Oriental from further executing or
implementing the Order of Attachment dated January 20, 1970, issued also in
Civil Case No. 3641, CFI of Pampanga.

These two cases have their origin from an order of attachment
issued in Civil Case No. 3641, entitled “Aurora Fe Rivera Canlas vs.
Mariano T. Nasser” in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga (now
Regional Trial Court, RTC for short) Branch I, presided by respondent Hon.
Judge Malcolm G. Sarmiento, for collection of a sum of money. It is evident that both petitions seek to
enjoin or prohibit the implementation of the said order.

As gathered from the records, the facts of the case are as
follows:

Petitioner Mariano T. Nasser was a lessee of haciendas La-Union,
Montserrat, Sigaboy, Pundaguitan and Colatinan, in Davao Oriental owned by the
Estate of Don Amadeo Matute Olave (G.R. No. 32945, p. 109, Vol. I, Rollo).

Matias S. Matute, co-administrator of the Olave Estate executed
(a) an original Contract of Lease dated February 10, 1965, to expire on August
10, 1970 and (b) a Supplemental Contract of Lease dated June 12, 1965, for a
period of five (5) years after the expiration of the original Contract of Lease
dated February 10, 1965, both of which are in favor of NASSER as lessee (pp.
112-113, G.R. No. 32945).

On April 25, 1966, NASSER executed three (3) Promissory Notes in
favor of Matias S. Matute, with the following highlighted provisions, viz:

(1) “P378,000.00

x x x

“Should my original contract of lease dated February 10, 1965
and supplemental contact of lease dated January 7, 1966 over the haciendas of
the Estate (Hacienda La Union, Sigaboy, Montserrat, Colatinan and Pundaguitan)
leased by the co-administrator Matias S. Matute is already terminated or
cancelled before the expiration of the period thereof by final court judgment
or sale to us, any and all future installments of this PROMISSORY NOTE as of
said date of termination and cancellation shall be deemed also extinguished,
cancelled and become no longer payable.

“Any action involving the enforcement
of this contract shall be brought within
the City of Manila, Philippines x x x” (G.R.
No. L-32945, Vol. I, p. 109)

(2) “ORIGINAL LEASE

P231,000.00

x x x

(3) “SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE

P210,000.00

x x x.”

(G.R. No. L-32945, Vol. I, pp. 110;

On February 7, 1967, Matias S. Matute assigned, sold, transferred
and set-over unto respondent Aurora Rivera-Canlas, all the above described
promissory notes with the express conformity of petitioner Nasser (G.R. No.
L-32945, Vol. I, p. 107).

In 1968, NASSER bought the hereditary shares of the heirs Luis
Augustina, Elena, Amadeo, all surnamed Matute and Anunciacion Candelario for
the total amount of P660,000.00 (Rollo of G.R. No. 32945, pp. 182-186-195, Vol.
I).

Out of the total amount of P819,000.00 due on the three (3)
promissory notes, petitioner has paid only P121,983.45 leaving a total unpaid
balance of P697,016.55.

In G.R. No. L-32945

Respondent Aurora joined by her husband, Paterno R. Canlas, filed
a complaint on January 6, 1970 for a sum of money with application for a Writ
of Preliminary Attachment docketed as Civil Case No. 3641 before the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga (now Regional Trial Court) dated December 27, 1969
(Rollo, G.R. No. L-32945, pp. 99-105; 106-108) which was granted by Judge
Sarmiento upon a bond of P20,000.00 put up by respondents (G.R. No. L-32945,
pp. 120-121). The Sheriff of Manila
issued a notice of garnishment against NASSER as transferee-pendente-lite of
heirs Luis and Jose Matute and Amadeo Matute Candelario, Jr., which was entered
and made part and parcel of the case in Special Proceeding No. 25876 in
Re: Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute
Olave (G.R. No. L-32945, p. 122). Upon
motion of Canlas spouses, respondent judge issued an order deputizing the Chief
of Police of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, to serve, execute and fully
implement the Order of Attachment dated January 20, 1970, until the amount of
P697,016.55 is realized.

By virtue of the writ, respondent Chief of Police attached the
properties of petitioner, not otherwise exempt from execution, among which were
the latter’s leasehold rights in Hacienda Sigaboy, Montserrat, La
Union, Colatinan and Pundaguitan, which are producing copra and rendered his
report of such action to the court on February 18, 1970. (underscoring supplied)

Meanwhile, NASSER, as defendant, filed: (1) an Urgent Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue
(G.R. No. L-32945, pp. 136-140) and (2) an Urgent Motion to Dissolve or Discharge
the Order of Attachment issued on January 20, 1970, on the ground that the
order of attachment was improperly and irregularly issued (G.R. No. L-32945,
pp. 143-150). Said motions were opposed
by the respondent spouses on February 10, 1970 (G.R. No. L-32945, pp. 152-159;
162-167) both of which were denied by respondent Judge. Instead of filing an answer, NASSER filed an
urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, on March 19, 1970, respondent judge declared Nasser in
default, allowed spouses Canlas to present their evidence ex-parte (G.R. No.
L-32945, p. 206), and on the following day, March 20, 1970 rendered judgment in
Civil Case No. 3641 in favor of said spouses and ordered Nasser to pay them
P684,015.55, with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint
until fully paid plus P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and another P5,000.00 for
expenses of litigation.

However, respondent judge motu propio set aside the
order of default on March 23, 1970 (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 206-208), it appearing
that Nasser had filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Order of Default dated
March 19, 1970” (Rollo, p. 201-204).

Then on April 3, 1970, herein petitioner filed in the lower court
another “Urgent Motion to Set Aside or Revoke the order of January 24, 1970” deputizing
the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental as special sheriff
with prayer for restraining order or injunction (Rollo, pp. 208-223). This was opposed by the Canlas spouses on
April 8, 1970 (Rollo, pp. 228-250) to which Nasser filed a “Reply”.

On April 24, 1970, respondent judge issued two orders,
namely: (1) holding in abeyance his
resolution on petitioner’s motion to relieve the Chief of Police of Governor
Generoso, in view of the pendency of CA-G.R. No. 44856-R before the Court of
Appeals, where the same issue was supposedly raised (Rollo, p. 267); and (2)
denying Nasser’s motion for a reconsideration of the order dated February 23,
1970 denying his motion to dismiss.

From the orders dated April 24, 1970, petitioner filed a petition
for certiorari and/or prohibition with the Supreme Court, the same was
docketed as G.R. No. L-31904. After
finding that the issues posed are closely connected and interdependent with
those raised in CA-G.R. No. 44856-R pending in the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action
in its resolution dated May 8, 1970 and was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 45317-R.

On June 17, 1970, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the
petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent
judge Malcolm G. Sarmiento from continuing the hearing of Civil Case No. 3641
in whatever stage it may be found and to enforce the Order of Attachment issued
in Civil Case No. 3641, and enjoining also the Chief of Police of Governor
Generoso, Davao Oriental, from executing such Order of Attachment.

An answer to the petition was filed by the Canlas spouses on July
23, 1970.

On October 7, 1970, the respondent Court of Appeals rendered its
decision in CA-G.R. No. 45317-R, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the present petition for writs of certiorari
and/or prohibition is hereby denied for lack of merit and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by this Court on June 16, 1970 in connection with
this case is ordered dissolved. The
costs of this proceeding shall be borne by the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, Vol. II, p. 644).

Nasser’s   motion and
supplemental motion for reconsideration were denied. Hence, this petition in G.R. No. L-32945.

In G.R. No. L-32946

Meanwhile, Nasser on February 12, 1970 filed Civil Case No. 138
in a co-equal court CFI-Davao Oriental, a complaint for injunction against
respondent Chiefs of Police of Governor Generoso and San Isidro praying that
the latter be enjoined or restrained from attempting to stop petitioner from
removing or disposing the copra from the haciendas for lack of authority.

Respondents Chiefs of Police filed an Urgent Opposition to the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Dismiss Civil Case
No. 138 alleging that the CFI-Davao Oriental lacks jurisdiction over the case
and that the complaint states no cause of action.

On February 23, 1970, NASSER filed Civil Case No.
140 with the CFI-Davao Oriental against respondents Canlas and Matias S.
Matute for annulment of said Promissory Notes and Deed of Assignment.

On even date NASSER filed in Civil Case No. 138, a Supplemental
Complaint with Urgent Motion for Grant of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
Ex-Parte and Urgent Motion for Restraining Order dated February 28, 1970, which
motions (G.R. No. L-32946, pp. 14-15, Vol. I) were granted by Judge Vicente
Bullecer, CFI-Davao Oriental in the Order of March 3, 1970, restraining the
Chiefs of Police of Governor Generoso and San Isidro from further attaching the
copra of petitioner. (Emphasis
supplied)

On March 7, 1970, Canlas and the respective Chiefs of Police of
Governor Generoso and San Isidro filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals docketed as
CA-G.R. No. 44856-R against Judge Bullecer of CFI-Davao Oriental and
petitioner, praying that Judge Bullecer be restrained from continuing the
hearing of Civil Case No. 138 and from enforcing the restraining order he had
issued.

On March 11, 1970, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for, enjoining petitioner or any of his agents,
representatives or employees to refrain from interfering and taking possession
of the properties levied on the properties subject of leasehold rights and
levied on attachment by the special sheriff and from impeding and obstructing
the Writ of Attachment issued in Civil Case No. 3641, CFI-Pampanga, until
further orders.

Afterwards other cases were filed against respondents allegedly
by dummies of NASSER and in which Judge Bullecer of CFI-Davao Oriental also
issued writs of preliminary injunction as follows:

Civil Case No. 174 entitled Renato
Cruz, plaintiff versus Sisenando Rivera, Jr., Vicente Castro, Tomas Centillas,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 175 entitled Felixberto
Carios, plaintiff versus Sisenando Rivera, Jr., Rufino Nasser, Tomas Centillas
and Vicente Castro, defendants.

Civil Case No. 176 entitled Jose S.
Matute, Rosario S. Matute, Trinidad Matute, Fortunata Zambrano Matute, plaintiffs
versus Sisenando Rivera, Jr., Rufino Nasser, Tomas Centillas, Vicente Castro,
Cesario Udtoman, and Rolando Centillas, defendants.

enjoining the defendants,
their agents, and/or representatives and men
working under them to desist from interfering
harassing and molesting and taking away
the possession of and management of the
five (5) haciendas (which were subject
matter of the Order of Attachment issued
in Civil Case No. 3641, CFI-Pampanga). (pp. 226-227, Vol. I, G.R. No. L-32946; and
pp. 622-633, Vol. II, Ibid. (underscoring supplied).

In view thereof, upon motion of respondent Canlas, the Court of
Appeals issued an Amended Writ of Preliminary Injunction which likewise
enjoined the hearing of Civil Cases Nos. 140, 174, 175, 176 or any other case
brought before the CFI-Davao Oriental by any party for the purpose of rendering
nugatory or ineffective, impeding or obstructing the writ of preliminary
attachment issued by the CFI-Pampanga in Civil Case No. 3641.

On October 10, 1970, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision
in CA-G.R. No. 44856-R making permanent the Amended Writ of Preliminary
Injunction dated June 16, 1970.

A motion to reconsider said decision was filed by NASSER but the
same was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 3, 1970.

Hence, this petition in G.R. No. L-32946.

G.R. Nos. L-32945 and L-32946 were consolidated in the resolution
of January 12, 1971 and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued in G.R. No.
L-32945 enjoining the Court of Appeals from enforcing its decision dated
October 7, 1970 and respondent judge from continuing the hearing of Civil Case
No. 3641 and the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso from executing the Order
of Attachment.

Respondents filed a Joint Memorandum in both cases (G.R. No.
L-32946, p. 747, Vol. II) while petitioner failed to file the required
memorandum.

The center of the conflict is whether or not the writ of
preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. 3641 (G.R. No. L-32945) issued by the
CFI of Pampanga in favor of Canlas may be enjoined in Civil Case No. 138 (G.R.
No. L-32946) by the CFI of Davao Oriental in favor of Nasser.

The issues common to both G.R. No. L-32945 and L-32946 are: (1) that the venue was improperly laid, subject
Civil Case No. 3641 having been filed in Pampanga instead of in Manila as
stipulated; (2) that the appointment of the Chief of Police of Governor
Generoso, Davao Oriental as Special Sheriff to serve and implement the Order of
Attachment was erroneous; and (3) that the Order of Attachment was not validly
issued.

Aside from the fact, that it has already been settled, that
stipulations in a contract which specify a definite place for the institution
of an action arising in connection therewith, do not, as a rule, supersede the
general rule on the matter set out in Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, so that it
should be construed merely as an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place (Western Minolco Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
167 SCRA 592 [1988]), Nasser has in effect waived his objection thereto,
by: (a) his motion to dismiss based not
on the court’s lack of authority to issue the Order of Attachment but on the
non-observance of requirements of the Rules; (b) his motion to lift order of
default; and (c) his answer with counterclaim filed in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga. Consequently, it
is immaterial as whether or not there is a novation of contract in this case.

It is likewise evident that respondent judge did not err in
deputizing the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, as special sheriff under
Section 2, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court where the former is expressly
authorized to require not only the sheriff but also other officers of the
province or the sheriffs or other proper officers of different provinces in
this case, the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, to attach all the
properties of the party against whom it may be issued within the province not
exempt from execution.

Finally, it is settled that a verified statement incorporated in
the complaint without a separate affidavit is sufficient and valid to obtain
the attachment (Tolentino v. Carla, et al., 66 Phil. 140-143). Thus, under the same ruling, the verified
complaint in the case at bar entitled “Application for a Writ of
Preliminary Attachment” which specifically stated that to avoid redundancy
and repetition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs as required under Section 3,
Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court is dispensed with, as the matters to be
treated and contained therein are already incorporated and made part of the
complaint, duly verified by them, has undoubtedly substantially complied with
the requirements of the Rules and the court to which the application for the
attachment was filed has jurisdiction to issue the writ prayed for (Central
Capiz v. Salas, 43 Phil., 30 [1922]).

Additional issues raised in G.R. No. L-32946, are: (1) the prematurity of the petition for certiorari
and prohibition and (2) lack of legal standing of Canlas to file this petition.

The certiorari and prohibition case instituted by
respondents Chiefs of Police was not filed prematurely in view of the
injunction order issued by the CFI-Davao Oriental enjoining the further
enforcement of the Order of Attachment in Civil Case No. 3641, which injunction
order unduly interfered with the acts of another court of co-equal, coordinate
and concurrent jurisdiction.

It is doctrinal that no court has the power to interfere by
injunction with the judgment or order of another court of concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction (Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, 163 SCRA 237 [1988]; Investors
Finance Corporation v. Ebarle, 163 SCRA 60 [1988]; Municipality of Malolos v.
Libangang Malolos, Inc., 164 SCRA 290 [1988]).

Respondents Canlas are aggrieved parties within the meaning of
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. Revised
Rules of Court even if not made parties nor intervenors in Civil Case No. 138
since they are the plaintiffs in the prior case (Civil Case No. 3641) in whose
favor the Order of Attachment was issued and which order was being enforced by
respondents Chiefs of Police. It is but
natural that any interference with or obstruction to the implementation of said
Order of Attachment would work prejudice to them and make them aggrieved parties. Otherwise stated, respondents Canlas as
ruled in a recent case, are real parties in interest who would be benefitted or
injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit (Lee v. Romillo,
Jr., 161 SCRA 589 [1988]).

In the same manner, the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted by its
issuance by mere motion of respondents Canlas of an Amended Writ of Preliminary
Injunction which included Civil Cases Nos. 140, 174, 175, 176 or any other case
brought before the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental by any party for
the purpose of obstructing or rendering nugatory the preliminary attachment
issued by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in Civil Case No. 3641. To require the parties to file a new petition
or an independent suit for the purpose would be preposterous, it being the very
objective of the petition in CA-G.R. No. 44856-R where the motion was filed, to
enjoin the undue and improper interference of the CFI-Davao Oriental to the
Order of Attachment issued by the CFI-Pampanga.

The issuance of an amended writ of preliminary injunction by the
Court of Appeals is within its inherent power to amend and control its processes
and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice (Section 5(g),
Rule 135, Revised Rules of Court). Undoubtedly, the injunction is essential for the orderly administration
of justice and was sought to avoid multiplicity of suits.

In Government Service Insurance System vs. Hon. Alfredo C.
Florendo, etc., et al., G.R. No. L-48603, September 29, 1989, the High Tribunal
ruled that:

“x x x The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of
injunction rests in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of
pecuniary compensation and the prevention of multiplicity of suit x x x”.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, both petitions in G.R. Nos. L-32945
and L-32946 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed decisions
of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the temporary restraining order
issued in G.R. No. L-32945 is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by
Justice Jose S. Rodriguez and concurred in