33 Delta Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 212, G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997

Delta Motors Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121075. July 24, 1997
DAVIDE, JR., J.
Facts:
Private respondent State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) brought an action for a sum of
money against DELTA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch VI. The latter
ruled in favor of SIHI. However, the decision could not be served on DELTA, either personally
or by registered mail, due to its earlier dissolution.
SIHI moved, on 4 November 1986, for service of the decision by way of publication,
which the trial court allowed in its order of 6 December 1986. After publication, SIHI moved
for execution of the judgment, which the trial court granted in its order of 11 March 1987 on
the ground that no appeal had been taken by DELTA despite publication of the decision. The
writ of execution was issued and pursuant thereto certain properties of DELTA in Iloilo And
Bacolod City were levied upon and sold. The sheriff likewise levied on some other properties of
DELTA.
DELTA then commenced a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals, the former insisted that: (a) the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant (DELTA) since there was no valid/proper service of summons, thus rendering
the decision null and void; and (b) the void decision never became final and executory. The
CA ruled against DELTA on the first ground, but ruled that the decision never became executory
because records show that the assailed judgment had never been properly served against PNB (which
assumed DELTA’s operation upon its dissolution). The CA also stated that the publication was not a
cure for such a fatal defect.
DELTA filed an MR, insisting there could be no valid service of summons since the RTC
decision was not in accordance with the Rules and hence void. Dismissed by CA, DELTA filed a
petition with the SC for review on certiorari which was denied by the latter.
DELTA then filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, indicating that it was appealing from the
earlier decision and prayed that records be elevated to the CA. SIHI filed a motion to dismiss
DELTA’s appeal on the grounds that it was filed out of time. DELTA’s appeal was dismissed.
DELTA filed an Omnibus motion with the CA to declare all acts and proceedings relating to
the earlier decision as void. The CA issued a resolution on Jan. 5 1995.
SIHI filed a motion for clarification, asking for a deletion of a portion of the resolution for it
being mere obiter dictum (“While it is true that as a necessary consequence the decision of the Court
of Appeals dated January 22, 1991 ruling that the decision in Civil Case No. 84-23019 "has not
attained finality pending service of a copy thereof on petitioner Delta, which may appeal therefrom
within the reglementary period", all proceedings and/or orders arising from the trial court's decision in
Civil Case No. 84-23019 are null and void x x x .”) CA decreed to amend its resolution and delete the
assailed paragraph.
Issue: Whether the assailed paragraph in the CA’s resolution was obiter dictum?
Held:
Yes, the assailed paragraph was an obiter dictum.
An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a court upon some
question of law which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is a remark
made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, “by the way,” that is,
incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not
necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or
analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.
The phrase was not raised by the petitioner expressly in its petition assailing the dismissal of
its notice of appeal. Hence, it could not be considered a prerequisite in disposing of the issues.
For recit:
● After a painstaking review of the record in CAG.R. SP No. 29147, we are more than
convinced that the respondent Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
denying DELTA’s Omnibus Motion. The decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 June
1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147 had long become final insofar as DELTA was
concerned, and it very well knew that the only issues raised therein concerned the
trial court’s orders of 3 June 1992 and 14 September 1992. As a matter of fact, at
the time Delta filed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, the orders sought to be
declared null and void in the Omnibus Motion had already been issued, they having
been so issued at the commencement of CA-G.R. SP No. 23068. In short, if DELTA
intended such orders to be challenged in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, it could have
explicitly alleged them as sources of additional causes of action and prayed for the
corresponding affirmative relief therefrom, and if this course of action initially proved
unavailing then DELTA could and should have moved for reconsideration on that
aspect. After the finality of the decision in said case, any attempt to introduce or
revive the issue had become procedurally impermissible. Plainly, the issues raised
in the Omnibus Motion could have been allowed during the pendency of said case
by way of amendments to the petition.
● Questions that may be decided.—No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over
the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors and
properly argued in the brief, save as the court, at its option, may notice plain errors
not specified, and also clerical errors. Clearly then, the Court of Appeals could only
consider errors raised by petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, which were limited to
the trial court’s orders of 3 June 1992 and 14 September 1992. These were the only
errors Delta argued extensively in its brief. To allow DELTA’s Omnibus Motion which
it filed more than eight months from promulgation of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
29147, or long after finality of said case, would result in abandonment of sound
judicial process.

33 Delta Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 212, G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

33 Delta Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 212, G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

33 Delta Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 212, G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delta Motors Corporation vs.

You might also like