G.R. No. L-18695. August 31, 1962
CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, JOSE MIÑANO AND CECILIA M. VDA. DE MIÑANO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ROMBLON, CONSTANCIO L. MARQUEZ AND INES…
BARRERA, J.:
preliminary injunction filed by herein petitioners Cipriano Martinez, as
ex-administrator, and his bondsmen Jose Miñano and Cecilia M. Vda. de Miñano
(the latter in representation of her deceased husband Francisco Miñano), in
Special Proceedings Nos. V-53 and V-841 of the Court of First Instance of
Romblon, seeking to set aside respondent court’s orders of January 18 and June
30, both of 1961, directing the respondent Clerk of Court and concurrently
ex-officio provincial sheriff to issue a writ of execution against the
petitioners bondsmen of ex-administrator Martinez, for the recovery of the
amount of P3,015.11, proceeds of the sale of copra belonging to the estate under
administration.
The records disclose that on June 24, 1954, the respondent court, Judge
Pascual Santos then presiding, issued in the cases below, an order of this
tenor:
“ORDER
When these cases were called for hearing, Atty. Democrito M. Castro filed a
manifestation, and the undersigned, as presiding Judge, called the parties in
chamber to settle amicably all differences between the parties, and they arrived
at an agreement, but after it has been prepared, Atty. Democrito M. Castro and
his clients did not come to sign. The Court laments this attitude, because it
constitutes a manifest obstruction to terminate these proceedings and put an end
to the estranged relation among the parties, who are brothers and sisters. The
approval, therefore, of the Project of Partition is held in abeyance.“Upon examination of the account of the administrator, the Court arrived at
the conclusion that the amount he is charging for 180 days is excessive, as well
as expensive, for appearing before the Court. Without obtaining any authority
from the Court, he has delivered amounts to the heirs of Lorenzo Ramirez, in
excess of the income that he received as proceeds from the products of the
properties of these two special proceedings, and appearing in his report, as if
he had advanced the same.“The Court, therefore, disapproves his account, and discharges him as
administrator, appointing the Clerk of Court Atty. Constancio L. Marquez as
administrator of these two special proceedings with the bond of P1,000.00.“The actual administrator Cipriano Martinez is hereby ordered that all
proceeds from the sale of the products of the properties of these two special
proceedings be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Court immediately.“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Notified of said order, petitioner Martinez, on July 10, 1954, filed a motion
for reconsideration protesting against his relief without being given a day in
court and claiming that the delivery of the amounts to the heirs of the deceased
Lorenzo Ramirez was made in pursuance to the agreement mentioned in the
above-quoted order of the court. No action on this motion for reconsideration
appears in the records.
On August 6, 1954, respondent Ines Ramirez (one of the heirs) filed a motion
(petition) asking the court to order petitioner Martinez to deposit in court the
proceeds of the copra sold, on the ground that the sale took place after he was
discharged as administrator of the estate on June 24, 1954. To this motion,
petitioner Martinez filed an opposition (answer) claiming that he sold the copra
in question on June 15, 1954 while he was still administrator of the estate, and
not on June 24 as respondent Ramirez had claimed.
On October 18, 1954, respondent Ramirez filed another motion (petition)
praying the court to order petitioner Martinez to render an account of the sale
of the copra.
Without awaiting the court’s action on said petition, petitioner Martinez, on
May 10, 1955, filed in court an account corresponding to the months of April to
June, 1954, including therein the amount of P3,015.11, proceeds of the sale of
the copra in question.
On June 22, 1957 (or 2 years, 10 months, and 16 day3 thereafter),[1] the court, this time presided by Judge
Jose Evangelista, issued the following order:
“ORDER
“This is a petition, dated August 6, 1954, filed by the counsel for Inez
Ramirez, asking that the former administrator, Cipriano Martinez, be ordered to
deposit with the Clerk of this Court the proceeds of the sale of ten tons of
copra.“It appears that said former administrator sold ten (10) tons of copra
belonging to these testate and intestate proceedings, after he was relieved as
administrator and without authority of this Court. On the other hand, the
account of said former administrator had been disapproved by this Court, and he
is under obligation to file a new account, in accordance with the orders of this
Court dated June 14, 1954 and June 20, 1956.WHEREFORE, the former administrator, Cipriano Martinez, is hereby ordered to
file a new account of his administration within ten (10) days from receipt of
notice of this order. Said administrator is further ordered to deposit with the
Clerk of Court the proceeds of the sale of the ten (10) tons of copra which he
disposed of after he was dismissed by the Court as administrator.“SO ORDERED.”
On July 23, 1957, petitioner Martinez filed a manifestation reiterating that
the copra in question was sold by him before his removal, without hearing, as
administrator of the estate, and asking that the order to deposit be
reconsidered as the proceeds of the sale had already been included in the new
account submitted by him which he asked to be approved. Again, nothing appears
in the records to show that action has been taken on this petition or on the new
accounts submitted since May 10, 1955.
On January 16, 1960 (or 2 years, 6 months, and 25 days thereafter),
respondent Ramirez filed an ex-parte motion for execution against
petitioner Martinez, stating:
“1. That the ex-administrator, Cipriano Martinez, has sold ten (10) tons of
copra, and said ex-administrator did not deposit the proceeds of the sale to the
Clerk of Court, in spite of several orders issued to that effect by this
Honorable Court.“2. That this Honorable Court, on October 23, 1959, ordered the said
ex-administrator, Cipriano Martinez “to appear and explain during the next
hearing of this special proceedings why until now he has not deposited the sale
of ten (10) tons of copra.“3. That this special proceedings are set for hearing today, January 16,
1960, but the said ex-administrator, Cipriano Martinez did not appear, and did
not-deposit the product of the sale of ten (10) tons of copra.“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested, to avoid further delay, that the
Clerk of Court be ordered to issue the order of execution against said Cipriano
Martinez and his bondsmen. This petition is aside from whatever action and
relief this Honorable Court may deem proper, said ex-administrator Cipriano
Martinez, having defied and disobeyed the orders of this Honorable
Court.”
On January 18, 1960, the court, this time presided by respondent Judge
Raymundo Villacete issued an order, to wit:
“ORDER
“Considering the written ex-parte petition for issuance of an order of
execution filed by counsel for Ines Ramirez, the Court finding the same legally
in order, hereby grants the said petition.“The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to issue an order of execution against
the bondsmen of ex-administrator Cipriano Martinez, for the collection of the
amount of P3,015.11 (proceeds of the) sale of 10,836 kilos of copra, which he
has not deposited with the office of the Clerk of Court, in spite of several
orders issued to that effect.“SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner Martinez filed a motion for reconsideration of said order, but
respondent Judge denied the same, in an order dated June 30, 1960, which
states:
“ORDER
“The telegraphic request of Atty. Democrito M. Castro for the transfer of the
date of the hearing of his motion is hereby denied.“Considering the manifestation and motion for reconsideration, the order of
this Court dated January 18, 1960 in the above-entitled special proceedings
filed by Atty. Democrito M. Castro, the same is hereby denied for lack of
merit.“The Court hereby reiterates its order dated January 19, 1960, ordering the
Clerk of Court to issue a Writ of Execution against the bondsmen of
ex-administrator Cipriano Martinez, for the recovery of the amount of
P3,015.11.“SO ORDERED.”
Pursuant to said order, the Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution on
January 18, 1961 and an alias writ on February 3, 1961, but both were returned
unsatisfied.
On August 9, 1961, petitioners Martinez,, Jose Miñano and Cecilia M. Vda. de
Miñano filed with us the present petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction against respondents Judge Villacete, Clerk of Court and ex-officio
provincial sheriff Constancio L. Marquez, and Ines Ramirez. In due time, we
issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondents or their
representatives from enforcing the writ of execution, upon petitioners’ filing a
bond of P1,000.00.
The only question to be determined in this case is whether respondent Judge
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in
issuing the order of execution in question.
Section 1, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, provides that “Execution shall
issue upon a final judgment or order upon the expiration of the time to
appeal when no appeal has been perfected”. Stated otherwise, only a final, not
interlocutory, judgment or order may be executed (Mendoza vs. Parungao, 49 Phil.
271; Perkins vs. Perkins, 57 Phil. 223; Yulo vs. Powell, 36 Phil. 743;
Philippine Trust Co., vs. Santamaria, 53 Phil. 463).
In the instant case, there is no showing that a final judgment or order had
been issued against petitioners, as to justify the issuance of a writ of
execution against them. If at all, what appears on record is an order of the
trial court dated June 22, 1957 stating that petitioner Martinez “sold ten (10)
tons of copra belonging to these testate and intestate proceedings, after he was
relieved as administrator, and without authority of this Court”, and ordering
him, therefore, to “file a new account of his administration within ten (10)
days from receipt of notice” of the order, as well as “to deposit with the Clerk
of Court the proceeds of the sale of the ten (10) tons of copra which he
disposed of after he was dismissed by the Court as administrator”.
But this can hardly be considered a final judgment or order which could serve
as the basis of the order of execution in question. Note that it merely requires
petitioner Martinez to render an account of his administration, and to deposit
the proceeds of the copra sold by him in 1954 with the Clerk of Court, the
non-compliance of which, could at most render him (Martinez) liable only for
contempt of court under Section 3(b), Rule 64, of the Rules of court,
under Section 3(b), Rule 64, of the Rules of Court,[2] for refusal to obey its lawful order. And
this order has not become final because petitioner Martinez’ motion for its
reconsideration explaining that the copra was sold before his removal without
notice and its proceeds duly accounted for in his accounts submitted on May 10,
1953 and, consequently, could not be deposited in court, has remained unacted
upon up to the time of the issuance of the writ of execution. The order of
execution has, therefore, no legal basis.
* * * * * * *
“(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or
judge.”
But what is worse, the order of execution was issued, not against the
ex-administrator, but directly against the petitioners-bondsmen who, for all
that appears in the records, were never given any opportunity to be heard.
(Evans vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 111 Phil., 1002).
Wherefore, the writ of certiorari prayed for by petitioners is granted.
Respondent Judge’s orders (of June 18 and 30, 1960) complained of, are set
aside, and the injunction heretofore issued by this Court is made permanent,
without prejudice to further proceedings in accordance with law. No costs. So
ordered.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] The delay was apparently due to the retirement of
Judge Pascual Santos and the intermittent sessions of the Court in Romblon which
was at the time attached to the Court of First Instance of Capiz.
[2] “SEC. 3. Contempt punished after charge and
hearing.—After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to
the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for contempt: