G. R. No. 19651. June 30, 1966
ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM), SALVADOR T. LLUCH, MARIANO LL. BADELLES, NICANOR HALIBAS AND LAURENTINO LL. BADELLES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE MANUEL ESTIPONA, COURT OF FI…
DIZON, J.:
of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Court of First
Instance of Lanao del Norte and the Sheriff of Illgan City frosi
executing the foner’s decision dated December S, 1960 in Civil Case No.
577, as corrected by another served upon the parties under date of
January 11, 1961, and its order dated March 24, 1962 providing for the
execution of the Judgeent Mentioned heretofore. The petition also prays
for an order cossunding said Court to approve and certify petitioners’
record on appeal; to make permanent, after due hearing, the writ of
preliminary injunction issued; to dismiss Civil Case No. 577, or to
suspend proceedings therein until after the termination of CR Cases
Nos. 175-MC and 426-ULP, or to prohibit said Court permanently from
proceeding with Civil Case No. 577, and finally, to award damages and
expenses to petitioners pursuant to Section 9 (d), Republic Act No.
875, with costs, against respondent Compafiia Maritima.
It appears that on December 5, 1960, the Court of First
Instance of Lanao del Norte, through the respondent judge, decided
Civil Case No. 577 as follows:
“Wherefore,
the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff Compañia Maritima
and against the defendant Allied Free Workers Onion and its officers,,
declaring the arrastre and stevedoring contract (Exh. J) hereby
terminated since August 31, 1954, declaring as is hereby declared now
said contract of no more force and effect; and dismissing as is hereby
dismissed, the counterclaim with costs.“The defendants
Allied Free Workers Union, Salvador T. Lluch, President of the Union,
Mariano LL. Badelles, Vice-president, Laurentino LL. Badelles, and
Nicanor T. Balibas, officers of the Union are hereby adjudged
collectively and individually, Jointly and severally both in their
corporate, official and individual capacity as members of the said
Allied Free workers Union to pay the plaintiff Compafiia Maritlma the
following concepts:
(a) Actual or compensatory damages which include actual losses and lost profits (b) Moral damages (c) Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation or a total of FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTY THOUSAND (P520,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, plus 6%
interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until final
payment, and the costs; provided, however that the P50,000.00 moral
damages shall be remitted in case of no appeal for the obvious reason
that the defendants then realize or admit the justice of the
plaintiff’s claim, an attitude highly noble and praiseworthy otherwise,
the plaintiff ought to and should be entitled to the moral damages for
further fresh mental agony and anguish shall then be added to the
ignominy and humiliation.“It is further adjudged that a
permanent and perpetual injunction shall issue warning and enjoining
the Allied Free Workers Onion, and its above-named officers, and all
and each members of the Union, their lawyers, agents or representatives
now and forever to load, unload, or handle cargoes to and from any
vessel or ships of the plaintiff that dock at the port of Iligan City
or deliver any cargo or cargoes to and from shippers and consignees of
the said vessels of the plainclff, or to molest, harass, intervene or
interfere now and forever with the plaintiff’s vessels or with its
officers, agents, representatives or workers in the loading, unloading
and handling of cargoes to and from any vessel or ships of the
plaintiff that dock at the port of Iligan City or the deliveries of
cargoes to and from shippers and consignees of the said vessels of the
plaintiff under penalty of the law.“The defendant Union is
further required in case of appeal to put up an additional supersedeas
bond of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND (P520,000.00) PESOS to stay
execution except injunction.”
On December 17, 1960, petitioners formally moved for a reconsideration of the above judgment, on several grounds.
On
December 21, 1960, respondent Compafiia Maritime filed an urgent motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the decision in so
far as it provided for & money judgment and a permanent and
perpetual injunction against the now petitioners. The respondent
presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte being
absent at the time, said motion was set for hearing on December 27,
before the Municipal Court of Iligan City. The petitioners objected to
the motion claijsing that the execution prayed for was premature, and
alleging further that the aforesaid court had no jurisdiction over the
motion because it affected the decision of the case on the merits. On
January 6, 1961, however, said Municipal Court granted the motion.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.
Pending
resolution of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners, on January
6, 1961, filed (1) a notice of their intention to appeal from the
decision of December 5, 1960 and (2) the required appeal bond, and, on
January 10 of the same year, filed their record on appeal.
Then, on January 11, 1961, the respondent court, motu proprio,
issued an order in which, after enumerating certain “errata and
omissions” found in its decision of December 5, 1960, it provided as
follows:
“In view of the proper corrections made
on the errata and omissions, let an amended corrected copy of said
decision be made furnishing all the parties copy thereof accordingly.”
Subsequently, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary Injunction (G. R. No. L-17934) to set aside the order and
writ o£ execution memtioned heretofore. On January 18, 1961, We issued
the preliminary writ prayed for, restraining the respondent court from
hearing or proceeding with Civil Case No. 577 and from carrying out the
order and writ of execution issued by the Municipal Court of Iligan
City, and on December 28, 1961, We rendered judgment in said case as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, petition is granted. The orders issued by
respondent municipal judge dated January 6, and 9, 1961, are hereby set
aside, with costs against respondent Compaflia Maritima.”
Thereafter, respondent Compaflla Maritima filed an urgent motion to set
for hearing the approval or disapproval of the record on appeal filed
by petitioners, together with its urgent motion for the issuance of a
special order of execution of the judgment in so far as it sentenced
petitioners to pay an enormous sum of money. But on March 6, 1962, said
respondent moved anew for the execution of the judgment, this time on
the ground that the amended corrected decision
dated January 11, 1961 had already become final and executory. On March
13 of the sane year, petitioners countered with a petition to dismiss
all pending motions set for hearing by CompaOia Maritima, Resolving
these pending incidents, the respondent court, on March 24, 1962,
issued an order whose dispositive part reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the Court holds that the decision of January
11, 1961, under the caption: ‘AMENDED CORRECTED DECISION’ has
superseded the original decision of December 5, 1960 and must be the
decision to be reckoned with In the fixing of all periods for the
perfection of appeal. Since the copy of that ‘AMENDED CORRECTED
DECISION’ was received by the defendants on January 20, 1961, and no
appeal was interposed against said decision within the period
prescribed by law, said decision has become final and executory. As
prayed for by plaintiff let a writ of execution issue directing both
the Provincial Sheriff and City Sheriff to enforce the judgment
rendered in this case per ‘AMENDED CORRECTED DECISION’ of January 11,
1961. In view of this finding, sweeping in character as that, all other
issues raised by the parties in their respective pleadings as herein
narrated, are declared moot and academic and no resolution is
necessary.”
On March 30, 1962, or Immediately after receiving notice of the
above order, petitioners made of record that they will file an urgent
motion for reconsideration thereof not later than April 2, 1962, but
this notwithstanding, on March 31 of the same year, the respondent
judge ordered the Clerk of Court, by telegram, to issue the
corresponding writ of execution of the whole judgment. The Clerk of
Court issued the writ as ordered and had it served on petitioners on
April 1, 1962. Thereupon, petitioners filed the present action.
Upon their filing a bond of P10,000.00, We issued a writ of
preliminary injunction directed to the respondent Court and the Sheriff
of Iligan City, restraining them from “hearing, proceeding or executing
Civil Case No, 577 of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte or
any ancillary motion thereunder, particularly the Execution Order of
March 24, 1962, and the Writ of Execution of March 31, 1962”.
On May 8, 1962, however, on respondents’ motion, We dissolved the
preliminary injunction in so far as the execution of stevedoring
contract was concerned, upon Compania Maritime’s filing a counterbond
of P20,000.00. Thereupon, the 225 union members of the petitioner
Allied Free Workers’ Union (PLUM) yielded their 19-year old jobs to the
new set of workers contracted by Compañia Maritime.
Inspite of the seemingly complicated issues involved in this case,
there is, in reality, but one decisive question to be resolved, namely:
Which is the true decision rendered in Civil Case No. 577 of the
respondent court?
It is not disputed that the respondent court rendered a decision on
the merits in Civil Case No. 577 on December 5, 1960, and that on
December 17 of the same year, petitioners – as defendants therein –
filed a motion for reconsideration. Then, while said motion was pending
resolution, petitioners, on January 6, 1961 filed a notice of appeal
and an appeal bond in the required amount and on January 10 of the same
year they filed their record on appeal. As upon the filing of the
motion for reconsideration the running of the period of appeal was
suspended, it is manifest that all these steps required for purposes of
appeal were taken in due time.
It appears, however, that on January 11, 1961, the respondent judge
issued an order requiring service upon the parties of what he had
entitled “Amended Corrected Decision” but which, in truth and in fact,
and in the language of His Honor himself, had no other purpose but to
correct certain “errata and omissions” found in his original decision.
As ordered by His Honor, the parties were served with their respective
copy of the Amended Corrected Decision. The respondent Compaflia
Maritima, and with it the respondent court, now argue that the
so-called Amended Corrected Decision is the true appealable decision in
the case; that petitioners not having appealed therefrom, the same had
become executory and that, therefore, the issuance of the corresponding
writ of execution was perfectly justified. This is completely erroneous.
A comparison between the two decisions will readily show that the corrections
of what His Honor, the respondent Judge called “errata and omissions”
were not substantial in nature. But even if they were, they would not
have justified the claim that the second document had completely
superseded the original decision of December 5, 1960. In view of the
fact that the so-called Amended Corrected Decision was served upon the
parties only after petitioners had already taken all the steps required
by law for the purpose of appealing from the decision of December 5,
1960, no reasonable man would make such a preposterous claim as that
advanced by respondents in this case, because the most that the
respondent court could have done in the premises was to require
petitioners to make the corresponding amendment in the record on appeal
they had previously filed, and thereafter proceed to hold the required
hearing thereon. To invoke a clearly inane and futile technicality in
justification of the motion for execution of the whole judgment and as
a sufficient reason to order the issuance of the corresponding writ of
execution could only betray a desire to deprive petitioners of their
right to appeal from a decision which, in their opinion, was unjust.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(a) Declaring void the order of March 24, 1952
issued by the respondent judge as well as the writ of execution issued
in accordance therewith; and(b) Ordering the respondent
court to hold a hearing for the approval, disapproval, or amendment of
the record on appeal tendered by petitioners in Civil Case No. 577
mentioned heretofore.
In view of the fact that the decision appealed from, in so far as it
provided for an injunction against petitioners, has been executed upon
the partial lifting of the preliminary injunction issued by Us in the
present case, the right is reserved to petitioners to enforce – in the
manner provided by law – whatever right they may have under the
provisions of Sections 2 and 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
With costs against the respondents, except the respondent judge.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Begzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.