G.R. No. L-25301. October 26, 1968
GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, CARLOS JIMENA, GLORIA JIMENA, AURORA JIMENA, JAIME JIMENA, DANTE JIMENA, JORGE JIMENA, JOYCE JIMENA, AS LEGAL HEIRS…
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
From an affirmance in toto by the Court of Appeals[1]
of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,[2]
specifically the portion thereof condemning Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., to pay
to Marta Lim Vda. de Jimena,
et. al., the sum of P30,691.92 solidarily with Ananias Isaac Lincallo for violation
of an injunction, this appeal is taken.
It is of record that in 1937, Ananias
Isaac Lincallo bound himself in writing to turn over
to Victor Jimena one-half (1/2) of the proceeds from
all mining claims that he would purchase with the money to be advanced by the
latter. This agreement was later on
modified (in a 1939 notarial instrument duly
registered with the Register of Deeds of Marinduque
in his capacity as mining recorder) so as to include in the equal sharing
arrangement not only the proceeds from several mining claims, which by that
time had already been purchased by Lincallo with
various sums totalling P5,800.00 supplied by Jimena, but also the lands constituting the same, and so as
to bind thereby their “heirs, assigns, or legal
representatives”. Apparently, the
mining rights over part of the claims were assigned by Lincallo
to Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., sometime before World War II because in 1950 the
corporation paid him P5,000 in consideration of, and as a quitclaim for,
pre-war royalties.
On several occasions thereafter, the mining claims in question
were made subject-matter of contracts entered into by Lincallo
in his own name and for his benefit alone without the slightest intimation of Jimena’s interests over the same. Thus, on 19 September 1951, Lincallo and
one Alejandro Marquez, as separate owners of particular mining claims, entered
into an agreement with Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., the assignee thereof,
regarding allotment to Lincallo of 45% of the
royalties due from the corporation. Four
months later, Lincallo, Marquez and Congressman Panfilo Manguerra, again as
owners, leased certain mining claims to Jacob Cabarrus, who, in turn,
transferred to Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc.,
his rights under the lease contract. By
virtue of still another contract executed by these lessors
on 29 February 1952, 43% of
the royalties due from Marinduque Iron Mines Agents,
Inc., were agreed upon to be paid to Lincallo.
As early as August, 1939 and down to September, 1952, Jimena repeatedly apprised Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., and Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc., of his interests over
the mining claims so assigned and/or leased by Lincallo
and, accordingly, demanded recognition and payment of his one-half share in all
the royalties allocated and paid and, thereafter, to be paid to the
latter. Both corporations, however,
ignored Jimena’s demands.
Payment of the P5,800 advanced for the purchase of the mining
claims, as well as the one-half share in the royalties paid by the two
corporations, were also repeatedly demanded by Jimena
from Lincallo.
Acknowledging Jimena’s contractual claim, Lincallo off and on promised to settle his obligations. And on 14 July 1952, Lincallo promised,
for the last time, to settle everything or before the 30th day of the same
month.
Lincallo, however, did not only fail to
settle his accounts with Jimena but transferred on 16
August 1952, a month after he promised to pay Jimena,
35 of his 45% share in the royalties due from Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., to
one Gregorio Tolentino, a salaried employee, for an
alleged consideration of P10,000.
On 2 September 1954,
Jimena commenced a suit against Lincallo
for recovery of his advances and his one-half share in the royalties. Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., and Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc., together with Tolentino, were later joined as defendants.
On 17 September 1954,
the trial court issued, upon petition of Jimena, a
writ of preliminary injunction restraining Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., and Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc., from paying royalties
during the pendency of the case to Lincallo, his assigns or legal representatives. Despite the injunction, however, Gold Star
Mining Co., Inc., was found out to have paid P30,691.92 to Lincallo
and Tolentino.
Said corporation claimed later on (on appeal) that the injunction had
been superseded and/or dissolved on 25 May 1955 by the trial court’s grant of Jimena’s petition for a writ of preliminary attachment
“to supersede the writ of preliminary injunction previously
issued”. But as the grant was conditioned
upon filing of a bond to be approved by the trial court, no writ of attachment
was issued because the bond offered by Jimena was
disapproved.[3]
Jimena and Tolentino
died successively during the pendency of the case in
the trial court and were, accordingly, substituted by their respective widows
and children.
After a protracted trial, the lower court rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment is rendered:
“1. Declaring the plaintiffs –
(a)
as successors in interest of Victor Jimena to be entitled to 1/2 of the 45% share of the
royalties of defendant Lincallo under the latter’s
contract with Gold Star, Exh. D or Exh. ‘D-1,’ dated September
19, 1951;
(b)
to a 1/2 of the 43% shares of the rental of
defendant Lincallo under his contract with Jesus
(Jacob) Cabarrus assigned to Marinduque Iron Mines,
and his contract with Alejandro Marquez, dated December 5, 1951, and February
29, 1952, Exhs. J and J-1;
(c)
and condemning defendants Gold Star and Marinduque Iron Mines to pay direct to plaintiffs said 1/2
shares of the royalties until said contracts are terminated;
“2. Condemning defendant Lincallo
to pay unto plaintiffs, as successors in interest of Victor Jimena
–
(a)
the sum of P5,800 with legal interest from the
date of the filing of the complaint;
(b)
the sum of P40,167.52 which is the 1/2 share of
the royalties paid by Gold Star unto Lincallo as of September 14, 1957;
(c)
the sum of P3,235.64 which is the 1/2 share of Jimena on the rentals amounting to P6,471.27 corresponding
to Lincallo’s share paid by Marinduque
Iron Mines unto Lincallo from December, 1951 to
August 25, 1954; under Exhibit ‘N’;
(d)
P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
“3. Declaring that the deed of sale, Exh. H, dated August 16, 1952, between defendant Lincallo and Gregorio Tolentino
was effective and transferred only 1/2 of the 45% (43%) share of Lincallo, and ordering Gold Star Mining Company to make
payment hereafter unto plaintiffs, pursuant to this decision on the royalties
due unto Lincallo, notwithstanding the cession unto Tolentino, so that of the royalties due unto Lincallo 1/2 should always be paid by Gold Star unto plaintiffs
notwithstanding said cession, Exh. H, unto Tolentino by Lincallo;
“4. Judgment is also rendered condemning the
estate of Gregorio Tolentino but not the heirs
personally, to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of P24,386.51 with legal interest
from the date of the filing of the complaint against Gregorio Tolentino;
“5. Judgment is rendered condemning defendant
Gold Star Mining Company to pay to plaintiffs solidarily
with Lincallo and to be imputed to Lincallo’s liability under this judgment unto Jimena, the sum of P30,691.92;
“6. Judgment is rendered condemning defendant Marinduque Iron Mines to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
P7,330.36;
“7. The counterclaims of defendants are dismissed;
“8. Costs against defendant Lincallo.
“SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis supplied.)
From this judgment, all four defendants, namely, Lincallo, the widow and children of Tolentino,
and the two corporations, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appeal interposed by Marinduque
Iron Mines Agents, Inc., was, however, withdrawn, while that of Lincallo was dismissed for his failure to file brief. Pending outcome of the appeal, the royalties
due from Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., were required to be deposited with the
trial court, as per order of 17 June
1958 issued by the same court.
In compliance therewith, Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., made a judicial
deposit in the amount of P30,691.92.
On 8 October 1965,
the Court of Appeals handed down a decision sustaining in its entirety that of
the trial court. Gold Star Mining Co., Inc.,
moved for reconsideration of said decision insofar as Its adjudged solidary liability with Lincallo
to pay to the Jimenas the sum of P30,691.92 “for
flagrant violation of the injunction” was concerned. The motion was denied. Hence, the present appeal.
Petitioner Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., argues that the Court of
Appeals’ decision finding that respondents Jimenas
have a cause of action against it, and condemning it to pay the sum of
P30,691.92 for violation of an allegedly non-existent injunction, are
reversible errors. Reasons: As to respondents Jimenas‘
cause of action, the same does not allegedly appear in the complaint filed
against petitioner corporation. And as
to the P30,691.92 penalty for violation of the injunction, the same can not
allegedly be imposed because (1) the sum of P30,691.92 was not prayed for; (2)
the injunction in question had already been superseded and/or dissolved by the
trial court’s grant of Jimena’s petition for writ of
preliminary attachment; and (3) the corporation was never charged, heard, nor
found guilty in accordance with, and pursuant to, the provisions of Rule 64 of
the (Old) Rules of Court.
We are of the same opinion with the Court of Appeals that
respondents Jimenas
have a cause of action against petitioner corporation and that the latter’s joinder as one of the defendants before the trial court is
fitting and proper. Said the Court of
Appeals, and we adopt the same:
“The first assigned error is the Trial Court erred in not
dismissing this instant action as ‘there is no privity
of contract between Gold Star and Jimena.’ This
contention is without merit.
“The situation at bar is similar to the status of the first
and second mortgagees of a duly registered real estate mortgage. While there exists no privity
of contract between them, yet the common subject-matter supplies the juridical
link.
“Here the evidence overwhelmingly established that Jimena made prewar and postwar demands upon Gold Star for
the payment of his 1/2 share of the royalties but all in vain so he (Jimena) was constrained to implead
Gold Star because it refused to recognize his right.
“Jimena now seeks for accounting of
the royalties paid by Gold Star to Lincallo and for
direct payment to himself of his share of the royalties. This relief cannot be granted without joining
the Gold Star specially in the face of the attitude it had displayed towards Jimena.
“Borrowing the Spanish maxim cited by Jimena’s
counsel, ‘el deudor de mi deudor
es deudor mfo,’ this legal maxim finds sanction in Article 1177, new
Civil Code which provides that ‘creditors, after having pursued the property in
possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims, may exercise all the rights
and bring all the actions of the latter (debtor) for the same purpose, save
those which are inherent in his person; they may also impugn the acts which the
debtor may have done to defraud them (1111)’.
“From another standpoint, equally valid and acceptable, it
can be said that Lincallo, in transferring the mining
claims to Gold Star (without disclosing that Jimena
was a co-owner although Gold Star had knowledge of this fact as shown by the
proofs heretofore mentioned) acted as Jimena’s agent
with respect to Jimena’s share of the claims.
“Under such conditions, Jimena has
an action against Gold Star, pursuant to Article 1883, New Civil Code, which
provides that the principal may sue the person with whom the agent dealt with
in his (agent’s) own name, when the transaction ‘involves things belonging to
the principal.’
“As counsel for Jimena has correctly
contended, ‘the remedy of garnishment suggested by Gold Star is utterly
inadequate for the enforcement of Jimena’s right
against Lincallo because Jimena
wanted an accounting and wanted to receive directly his share of the royalties
from Gold Star. That recourse is not
open to Jimena unless Gold Star is made a party in
this action’.”
Coming now to the violation of the injunction, we observe that
the facts speak for themselves.
Considering that no writ of preliminary attachment was issued by the
trial court, the condition for its issuance not having been met by Jimena, nothing can be said to have superseded the writ of
preliminary injunction in question. The
preliminary injunction was, therefore, subsisting and evidently violated by
petitioner corporation when it paid the sum of P30,691.92 to Lincallo and Tolentino.
Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., insists that it may not be penalized
for breach of the injunction, issued by the court of origin, without prior
written charge for indirect contempt, and due hearing, citing section 3 of Rule
64 of the old Rules of Court, now Rule 71 of the Revised Rules. We fail to see any merit in this contention,
as it misses the true nature and intent of the award of P30,691.92 to Jimena, payable solidarily by
Gold Star and Lincallo’s estate.
Said award is not so much a penalty against petitioner as a
decree of restitution, in order to make the violated injunction effective, as
it should be, by placing the parties in the same condition as if the injunction
had been fully obeyed. If Gold Star
Mining Co., Inc., had only heeded the injunction and had not paid to Lincallo the royalties of P30,691.92, such amount would now
be available for the satisfaction of the claims of Jimena
and his heirs against Lincallo. By sentencing Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., to
pay, for the account of Lincallo, the sum aforesaid,
the court merely endeavoured to prevent its award
from being rendered pro tanto nugatory
and ineffective, and thus make it conformable to law and justice.
That the questioned award was not intended to be a penalty
against appellant Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., is shown by the provision in the
judgment that the P30,691.92 to be paid by it to Jimena
is “to be imputed to Lincallo’s liability under this judgment”. The court thus left the way open for Gold
Star Mining Co., Inc., to recover later the whole amount from Lincallo, whether by direct action against him or by
deducting it from the royalties that may fall due under his 1951 contract with
appellant.
That the recovery of this particular amount was not specifically
sought in the complaint is of no moment, since the complaint prayed in general
for “other equitable relief”.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed from, the same is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant,
Gold Star Mining Co., Inc.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., on leave, did not take part.
[1]
CA-G.R. No. 23598-R.
[2]
Civil Case No. 23893.
[3]
Jimena’s “Ex-Parte
Petition for Approval of Bond for Issuance of Attachment” was denied by
the trial court as per the latter’s order of 14 October 1955 (Records on Appeal, pages 116-117).