Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Civpro Digests

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily in ordering the arrest of the complainant for contempt without due process. The records showed that at the time of arrest, possession of the subject property had not yet been delivered to the plaintiff and the writ of execution had not been implemented. The writ was directed at the sheriff, not the complainant. As such, the complainant could not be punished for disobeying a judgment that was not a special judgment enforceable through a writ of execution. Her acts also did not constitute direct contempt, which requires the misbehavior to occur in or near the presence of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civpro Digests

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    51 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily in ordering the arrest of the complainant for contempt without due process. The records showed that at the time of arrest, possession of the subject property had not yet been delivered to the plaintiff and the writ of execution had not been implemented. The writ was directed at the sheriff, not the complainant. As such, the complainant could not be punished for disobeying a judgment that was not a special judgment enforceable through a writ of execution. Her acts also did not constitute direct contempt, which requires the misbehavior to occur in or near the presence of the court.

    Original Description:

    civil procedure

    Original Title

    civpro digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily in ordering the arrest of the complainant for contempt without due process. The records showed that at the time of arrest, possession of the subject property had not yet been delivered to the plaintiff and the writ of execution had not been implemented. The writ was directed at the sheriff, not the complainant. As such, the complainant could not be punished for disobeying a judgment that was not a special judgment enforceable through a writ of execution. Her acts also did not constitute direct contempt, which requires the misbehavior to occur in or near the presence of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    51 views4 pages

    Civpro Digests

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily in ordering the arrest of the complainant for contempt without due process. The records showed that at the time of arrest, possession of the subject property had not yet been delivered to the plaintiff and the writ of execution had not been implemented. The writ was directed at the sheriff, not the complainant. As such, the complainant could not be punished for disobeying a judgment that was not a special judgment enforceable through a writ of execution. Her acts also did not constitute direct contempt, which requires the misbehavior to occur in or near the presence of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    37 Natl. Investment & Devt. Corp. v. Aquino, GR 3419, !

    une 3", 19##


    National Investment and Development Corp. (NIDC) v. Aquino
    FACTS:
    Batjak, (Basic Agricultural Traders Jointly Administered Kasamahan) is a Filipino-
    American corporation organized under the las o! the "hilippines, primarily engaged in the
    manu!acture o! coconut oil and copra cake !or e#port$
    %n &'(), the total inde*tedness o! Batjak amounted to " &&$'+$ As security, Batjak had
    mortaged its , coco-oil processing mills is -a.ao /ity, +isamis and 0eyte to +anila*ank,
    1epu*lic Bank and "/% Bank$ +oreo.er, as it as necessary to place additional capital to
    optimize the operation o! the mills, Batjak o*tained 2!inancial assistance3 !rom "4B$
    "er Batjak5s agreement ith "4B, the !olloing happened6
    a$ 4%-/ (a "4B su*sidiary) in.ested " ($7+ in Batjak in the !orm o! pre!erred shares,
    con.erti*le ithin )yrs at par into common stock$
    *$ The , mortgagee *anks released in !a.or o! "4B the mortgages they held8 Batjak also
    e#ecuted !irst mortgages in !a.or o! "4B
    c$ "4B granted Batjak an e#port-ad.ance line o! " ,+, later increased to " )+$
    d$ A .oting trust agreement (9TA) as e#ecuted in !a.or o! "4B *y the stockholders
    representing (:; o! the outstanding paid-up and su*scri*ed shares o! Batjak$ (The 9TA
    as !or a period o! )yrs, su*ject to renegotiation)
    %n &'(), as Batjak as insol.ent, "4B < 4%-/ !oreclosed on the , mills$ =u*se>uently,
    onership as consolidated in 4%-/$ Batjak rote to 4%-/ in>uiring i! it as interested in a
    renegotiation$ ?a.ing recei.ed no reply, it rote another letter in!orming 4%-/ that it (Batjak)
    ould sa!ely assume that 4%-/ as no longer interested$ %t then sent a third letter asking !or a
    complete accounting o! the assets, properties, management and operation o! Batjak, preparatory
    to the turn-o.er and trans!er o! the shares co.ered *y the 9TA$ 4%-/ replied and re!used to
    comply$
    Batjak sued !or mandamus$ Batjak also !iled a petition !or recei.ership o! property <
    assets$
    4%-/ !iles a motion to dismiss8 denied$ =u*se>uentky, the /F% judge granted the petition !or
    recei.ership, appointing , recei.ers$
    %ssue6
    WON the grant of receivership was proper. (Rule 59)
    Held: NO
    A recei.er o! real or personal property, hich is the su*ject o! the action, may *e appointed *y
    the court hen it appears !rom the pleadings that the party applying !or the appointment o!
    recei.er has an interest in said property$@) The right, interest, or claim in property, to entitle one
    to a recei.er o.er it, must *e present and e#isting$
    As *orne out *y the records o! the case, "4B ac>uired onership o! to (@) o! the three (,) oil
    mills *y .irtue o! mortgage !oreclosure sales$ 4%-/ ac>uired onership o! the third oil mill also
    under a mortgage !oreclosure sale$ /erti!icates o! title ere issued to "4B and 4%-/ a!ter the
    lapse o! the one (&) year redemption period$ =u*se>uently, "4B trans!erred the onership o! the
    to (@) oil mills to 4%-/$ There can *e no dou*t, there!ore, that 4%-/ not only has possession
    o!, *ut also title to the three (,) oil mills !ormerly oned *y Batjak$ The interest o! Batjak o.er
    the three (,) oil mills ceased upon the issuance o! the certi!icates o! title to "4B and 4%-/
    con!irming their onership o.er the said properties$ +ore so, here Batjak does not impugn the
    .alidity o! the !oreclosure proceedings$ 4either Batjak nor its stockholders ha.e instituted any
    legal proceedings to annul the mortgage !oreclosure a!orementioned$
    The ac>uisition *y "4B-4%-/ o! the properties in >uestion as not made or e!!ected under the
    capacity o! a trustee *ut as a !oreclosing creditor !or reco.ering on a just and .alid o*ligation o!
    Batjak$
    +oreo.er, the pre.ention o! imminent danger to property is the guiding principle that go.erns
    courts in the matter o! appointing recei.ers$ Ander =ec$ & (*), 1ule )' o! the 1ules o! /ourt, it is
    necessary in granting the relie! o! recei.ership that the property or !ired *e in danger o! loss,
    remo.al or material injury$
    %n the case at *ar, Batjak in its petition !or recei.ership, or in its amended petition there!or, !ailed
    to present any e.idence, to esta*lish the re>uisite condition that the property is in danger o! *eing
    lost, remo.ed or materially injured unless a recei.er is appointed to guard and preser.e it$
    B?C1CFD1C, the petitions are E1A4TC-$
    29.Barrete v Judge Amila
    FACTS:
    A writ of execution was subseuentl! issued b! res"ondent Judge. #owever$ on %&
    Januar! %992$ "ursuant to com"lainant's reuest$ t(e S(eri) gave (er until t(e end
    of t(e mont( to vacate t(e sub*ect "remises. As of & Jul! %992$ Barrete (ad not
    vacated+ (ence$ an alias writ of execution was issued. Again$ com"lainant was given
    an extension of two ,2- da!s to "ac. u" and leave. /n 0 Jul! %992$ t(e S(eri) went
    bac. to t(e "remises and alt(oug( (e did not 1nd com"lainant t(ere$ it was clear
    t(at s(e (ad not vacated because (er furniture and ot(er belongings were still in
    t(e (ouse. 2"on inuir!$ t(e S(eri) learned t(at com"lainant (ad gone to Tacloban
    Cit! and was due to return an!time. T(e S(eri) t(en "ut a "adloc. on t(e door of
    t(e (ouse occu"ied b! com"lainant. %
    /n 22 Januar! %992$ "lainti) Bungabong's counsel 1led a motion to 3eclare 4osita
    Barrete in Contem"t of Court.
    /n 25 Jul! %992$ res"ondent Judge issued an /rder for t(e arrest of 4osita Barrete.
    Com"lainant was arrested in t(e sub*ect "remises.
    6t was in t(e earl! morning of 27 Jul! %992 t(at com"lainant was arrested in t(e
    sub*ect (ouse and wit( (er t(ree ,5- minor c(ildren$ was detained at t(e 8unici"al
    Jail of Batuan$ Bo(ol$ until 20 Jul! %992.
    Before t(is Court$ com"lainant avers t(at (er arrest and detention wit(out
    according (er a da! in court constituted a 9agrant violation of (er rig(t to due
    "rocess.
    4es"ondent Judge argues t(at com"lainant's acts constituted direct contem"t and
    t(e order for (er arrest was made to save Juanita Bungabong from furt(er
    irre"arable (arm and to "rotect t(e image of t(e Court from degradation.
    6SS2::
    ;/< com"lainant's acts constituted direct contem"t and t(e order for (er arrest
    was.
    #:=3:
    Court considers t(at res"ondent Judge Amila acted arbitraril!. T(e records s(ow t(at
    at t(e time com"lainant was arrested$ no deliver! of "ossession of t(e sub*ect
    "remises (ad been made to t(e "lainti)+ t(e writ of execution (ad not !et been
    im"lemented.
    T(e writ of "ossession was directed not to com"lainant$ but to t(e S(eri)$ w(o was
    to deliver t(e "ro"erties to "lainti) Bungabong. As t(e writ did not command t(e
    com"lainant to do an!t(ing$ com"lainant could not be (eld guilt! of disobedience of
    or resistance to a lawful writ$ "rocess$ order$ *udgment or command of a court.
    8oreover$ com"lainant could not be "unis(ed for contem"t under "aragra"( ,b- of
    Section 5$ 4ule >%$ for disobedience of or resistance to t(e *udgment of t(e trial
    court because said *udgment was not a s"ecial *udgment enforceable under
    Section 9, Rule 39$ 4ules of Court$ w(ic( reads as follows:
    Sec. 9. Writ of execution of special judgment. ? ;(en a *udgment
    reuires t(e "erformance of an!other act than t(e "a!ment of mone!$
    or t(e sale or delivery of real or personal property$ a certi1ed co"! of
    t(e *udgment s(all be attac(ed to t(e writ of execution and s(all be
    served b! t(e o@cer u"on t(e "art! against w(om t(e same is
    rendered$ or u"on an! ot(er "erson reuired t(ereb!$ or b! law$ to
    obe! t(e same$ and suc( "art! or "erson ma! be "unis(ed for
    contem"t if (e obe!s suc( *udgment. ,:m"(asis su""lied-
    <eit(er can Judge Amila's contention t(at com"lainant's acts constituted direct
    contem"t be acce"ted. To constitute direct contem"t$ t(e alleged misbe(avior must
    (ave been committed in t(e "resence of or so near a court or *udge as to obstruct
    or interru"t "roceedings before t(e court. Com"lainant was not guilt! of suc(
    misbe(avior.

    You might also like