You are on page 1of 8

9/26/2017 G.R. No.

195450

TodayisTuesday,September26,2017

Custom Search

SECONDDIVISION

February1,2017

G.R.No.195450

DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner
vs.
EMMANUEL C.CARPIO,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudge,Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao
HON.
City, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, DABAY ABAD, HATAB ABAD, OMAR ABAS,
HANAPI ABDULLAH, ROJEA AB ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ABEDIN, ALEX ABEDIN, et al., represented by
theirAttorneyinFact,MR.MANUELL.TE,Respondents

DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekingtoreverseandsetasidetheJuly9,2008Decision1andtheJanuary
21, 2011 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 85719, which dismissed the petition for
certiorariandmandamusprayingfortheannulmentoftheMay17,2004andJuly9,2004Orders3oftheRegional
TrialCourt,Branch16,DavaoCity(RTC),inCivilCaseNo.28,72101.

TheAntecedents

OnAugust21,2001,DabayAbad,HatabAbad,OmarAbas,HanapiAbdullah,RojeaAbAbdullah,AbdullahAbedin,
AlexAbedin,etal.(Abad,etal.),representedbytheirattorneyinfact,ManuelL.Te,filedacomplaintfordeliveryof
certificatesoftitle,damages,andattorney'sfeesagainstpetitionerDevelopmentBankofthePhilippines(DBP)and
GuaranteeFundforSmallandMediumEnterprise(GFSME)beforetheRTC.4

Intheir,Complaint,5Abad,etal.prayed,amongothers,fortheissuanceofawritofseizure,pendinghearingofthe
case, for delivery of their certificates of title they claimed to be unlawfully detained by DBP and GFSME. They
alleged that their certificates of title were submitted to DBP for safekeeping pursuant to the loan agreement they
entered into with DBP. The same certificates of title were turned over by DBP to GFSME because of its call on
GFSME'sguaranteeontheirloan,whichbecamedueanddemandable,andpursuanttotheguaranteeagreement
betweenDBPandGFSME.

As prayed for, the RTC issued the Writ of Seizure6 on August 24, 2001. The writ was accompanied by Plaintiffs
BondforManualDeliveryofPersonalProperty7issuedbyCountryBankersInsuranceCorporation(CBIC).

OnSeptember5,2001,DBPfileditsOmnibusMotiontoDismissComplaintandtoQuashWritofSeizure8onthe
ground of improper venue, among others. Abad, et al. filed their Opposition9 and later, their Supplemental
Opposition,10 to which they attached the Delivery Receipt11 showing that the court sheriff took possession of 228
certificatesoftitlefromGFSME.

In its Order,12 dated September 25, 2001, the RTC granted DBP's omnibus motion and dismissed the case for
impropervenue.

OnDecember20,2001,DBPandGFSMEfiledtheirJointMotiontoOrderPlaintiffstoReturnTitlestoDefendants
DBPandGFSME.13AfterAbad,etal.filed their opposition, the RTC issued the Order,14 dated January 27, 2003,
directingAbad,etal.toreturnthe228certificatesoftitle.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 1/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
Abad,etal.filedapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwiththeCourtpraying,amongothers,forthenullificationand
reversaloftheJanuary27,2003OrderoftheRTC.TheCourt,however,initsJune9,2003Resolution,15dismissed
thepetition.

OnSeptember18,2003,DBPfileditsMotionforWritofExecution16oftheJanuary27,2003OrderbeforetheRTC.
On December 16, 2003, the RTC issued the corresponding Writ of Execution.17 The Sheriffs Return of Service,18
however,indicatedthatAbad,etal.failedtodeliverthecertificatesoftitle.

TheSubjectMotionagainsttheBond

DuetothenondeliveryofthecertificatesoftitlebyAbad,etal.,DBPfileditsMotion/ApplicationtoCallonPlaintiff's
Surety Bond,19 dated February 3, 2004, praying for the release of the bond issued by CBIC to answer for the
damagesitsustainedasaresultofthefailuretoreturnthe228certificatesoftitle.

TheRTCRuling

InitsOrder,datedMay17,2004,theRTCdeniedthesubjectmotionexplainingthattheresolutionofthemotionwas
no longer part of its residual power. It pointed out that although there was indeed an order to return the 228
certificatesoftitletoDBP,itwasnotmadeasaresultofatrialofthecase,butasaconsequenceoftheorderof
dismissalbasedonimpropervenue.

DBPmovedforreconsideration.Nevertheless,initsJuly9,2004Order,theRTCdeniedthemotion.

Aggrieved,DBPfiledapetitionforcertiorariandmandamusbeforetheCA.

TheCARuling

InitsJuly9,2008Decision,theCAdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariandmandamus.Itnoted that DBP didnot


moveforreconsiderationoftheSeptember25,2001Orderofdismissal.ItconsideredtheRTCdecisionasfinaland
executory.ItaddedthatSection20,Rule57oftheRulesofCourtprovidedthattheclaimfordamagesagainstthe
bondmustbefiledbeforetrialorbeforeappealwasperfectedorbeforethejudgmentbecameexecutory.20

DBPmovedforreconsideration,butitsmotionwasdeniedbytheCAinitsJanuary21,2011Resolution.

Hence,thispetition.

ISSUE

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS BLIND ADHERENCE TO AND STRICT APPLICATION
OFSECTION20,RULE57OFTHE1997RULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE.21

PetitionerDBParguesthatitcouldnothaveanticipatedthatAbad,etal.(respondents)wouldnotabidebythewrit
ofexecutionhence,priortosuchfailureofexecution,itwouldbeprematuretoclaimfordamagesagainstthebond
becauseDBPhadnotyetsufferedanyconsequentialdamageswiththeimplementationofthewritofseizureand
that Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court was not applicable as the damages resulting from the improper
issuanceofthewritofseizureoccurredonlyaftertheunjustifiedrefusalofrespondentstoreturnthetitlesdespite
theorderfromtheRTC.

InitsComment,22datedAugust11,2011,respondentCBICaverredthatSection20,Rule57oftheRulesofCourt
specifiedthatanapplicationfordamagesonaccountofimproper,irregularorexcessiveattachmentmustbefiled
beforethetrialorbeforeappealisperfectedorbeforethejudgmentbecomesexecutorythatthemotiontocallon
plaintiff'ssuretybondwasfiledmorethantwo(2)yearsaftertheSeptember25,2001OrderoftheRTC,dismissing
the case, became final and executory that, under Section 10, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, the surety's liability
underthereplevinbondshouldbeincludedinthefinaljudgmentthat,therebeingnojudgmentastowho,between
theplaintiffsandthedefendants,wasentitledtothepossessionofthecertificatesoftitle,theRTCproperlydenied
the motion to call on plaintiff's surety bond that, any claim for damages against the bond was only proper with
respecttoanylossthatDBPmighthavesufferedbybeingcompelledtosurrenderthepossessionofthecertificates
oftitlependingtrialoftheactionthat,inthiscase,themotiontocallonplaintiffssuretybondwasfiledafterthetrial
was already terminated with the issuance of the order of dismissal and that, instead of moving to claim for
damages, DBP sought to quash the writ of seizure, even though it might already have some basis to claim for
damages at that time as could be gleaned from the wordings of their motion to dismiss the complaint, based on,
amongothers,impropervenueandinapplicabilityofreplevinasproperremedy.

Respondents,ontheotherhand,failedtofiletheircommentdespiteseveralopportunitiesgrantedtothem.Thus,
theirrighttofileacommentonthepetitionforreviewwasdeemedwaived.

InitsConsolidatedReply,23datedAugust15,2016,DPBassertedthatSection20,Rule57oftheRulesofCourtdid
not cover a situation where there was an instantaneous dismissal of the case due to improper venue that the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 2/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
damages resulting from the improper issuance of the writ of seizure occurred only after the unjustified refusal of
respondents to return the titles despite order from the RTC and, that DBP could not resort to the surety prior to
recovering the titles from respondents at any time during the trial or before the judgment became final and
executory.

TheCourt'sRuling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

Thetrialcourtdidnotreach

theresidualjurisdictionstage

Residualjurisdictionreferstotheauthorityofthetrialcourttoissueordersfortheprotectionandpreservationofthe
rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal to approve compromises to permit
appealsbyindigentlitigantstoorderexecutionpendingappealinaccordancewithSection2,Rule39andtoallow
thewithdrawaloftheappeal,providedthesearedonepriortothetransmittaloftheoriginalrecordortherecordon
appeal,eveniftheappealhasalreadybeenperfectedordespitetheapprovaloftherecordonappeal24orincaseof
apetitionforreviewunderRule42,beforetheCAgivesduecoursetothepetition.25

The"residualjurisdiction"ofthetrialcourtisavailableatastageinwhichthecourtisnormallydeemedtohavelost
jurisdictionoverthecaseorthesubjectmatterinvolvedintheappeal.Thisstageisreachedupontheperfectionof
theappealsbythepartiesorupontheapprovaloftherecordsonappeal,butpriortothetransmittaloftheoriginal
records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its socalled residual jurisdiction to
issueprotectiveorders,approvecompromises,permitappealsofindigentlitigants,orderexecutionpendingappeal,
andallowthewithdrawaloftheappeal.26

Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthatbeforethetrialcourtcanbesaidtohaveresidualjurisdictionoveracase,atrial
on the merits must have been conducted the court rendered judgment and the aggrieved party appealed
therefrom.

Inthiscase,therewasnotrialonthemeritsasthecasewasdismissedduetoimpropervenueandrespondents
couldnothaveappealedtheorderofdismissalasthesamewasadismissal,withoutprejudice.Section1(h),Rule
41oftheRulesofCivilProcedurestatesthatnoappealmaybetakenfromanorderdismissinganactionwithout
prejudice.Indeed,thereisnoresidualjurisdictiontospeakofwherenoappealhasevenbeenfiled.27

In Strongworld Construction Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Perello, et al.,28 the Court elucidated on the difference
betweenadismissalwithprejudiceandonewithoutprejudice:

Wedistinguishadismissalwithprejudicefromadismissalwithoutprejudice.Theformerdisallowsand
barstherefilingofthecomplaintwhereas,thesamecannotbesaidofadismissalwithoutprejudice.
Likewise,wherethelawpermits,adismissalwithprejudiceissubjecttotherightofappeal. 1wphi1

xxx

Section1,Rule16ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedureenumeratesthegroundsforwhicha
motiontodismissmaybefiled,viz.:

Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
assertingaclaim,amotiontodismissmaybemadeonanyofthefollowinggrounds:

(a)Thatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendingparty

(b)Thatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroftheclaim

(c)Thatvenueisimproperlylaid

(d)Thattheplaintiffhasnolegalcapacitytosue

(e)Thatthereisanotheractionpendingbetweenthesamepartiesforthesamecause

(f)Thatthecauseofactionisbarredbyapriorjudgmentorbythestatuteoflimitations

(g)Thatthepleadingassertingtheclaimstatesnocauseofaction

(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned,orotherwiseextinguished

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 3/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
(i)Thattheclaimonwhichtheactionisfoundedisunenforceableundertheprovisionsof
thestatuteoffraudsand

(j)Thataconditionprecedentforfilingtheclaimhasnotbeencompliedwith.

Section5ofthesameRule,recitestheeffectofadismissalunderSections1(f),(h),and(i),thereof,
thus:

SEC.5.Effectofdismissal.Subjecttotherightofappeal,anordergrantingamotiontodismissbased
onparagraphs(f),(h),and(i)ofsection1hereofshallbartherefilingofthesameactionorclaim.

Brieflystated,dismissalsthatarebasedonthefollowinggrounds,towit:(1)thatthecauseofactionis
barredbyapriorjudgmentorbythestatuteoflimitations(2)thattheclaimordemandsetforthinthe
plaintiffspleadinghasbeenpaid,waived,abandonedorotherwiseextinguishedand(3)thattheclaim
onwhichtheactionisfoundedisunenforceableundertheprovisionsofthestatuteoffrauds,barthe
refiling of the same action or claim. Logically, the nature of the dismissal founded on any of the
precedinggroundsiswithprejudicebecausethedismissalpreventstherefilingofthesameactionor
claim. Ergo, dismissals based on the rest of the grounds enumerated are without prejudice because
theydonotprecludetherefilingofthesameaction.

xxx

As has been earlier quoted, Section 1(h), Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
mandatesthatnoappealmaybetakenfromanorderdismissinganactionwithoutprejudice.Thesame
section provides that in such an instant where the final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party
mayfileanappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule65.29

Here, the RTC dismissed the replevin case on the ground of improper venue. Such dismissal is one without
prejudice and does not bar the refiling of the same action hence, it is not appealable. Clearly, the RTC did not
reach, and could not have reached, the residual jurisdiction stage as the case was dismissed due to improper
venue,andsuchorderofdismissalcouldnotbethesubjectofanappeal.Withouttheperfectionofanappeal,let
alonetheunavailabilityoftheremedyofappeal,theRTCdidnotacquireresidualjurisdiction.Hence,itiserroneous
toconcludethattheRTCmayruleonDBP'sapplicationfordamagespursuanttoitsresidualpowers.

Equitycannotsupersedethe
RulesofCourt

DBPadmitsthatitfiledtheapplicationfordamagesaftertheorderofdismissalhadbecomefinalandexecutory.In
seekingrelieffromthisCourt,however,itinvokesequityandarguesthatastrictapplicationofSection20,Rule57of
the Rules of Court would prejudice its right to recover damages arising from the improper attachment of the
certificatesoftitle.

DBP, however, must be reminded that equity, "which has been aptly described as a 'justice outside legality,' is
appliedonlyintheabsenceof,andneveragainst,statutorylawor,asinthiscase,judicialrulesofprocedure.30The
pertinentpositiverulesbeingpresenthere,theyshouldpreemptandprevailoverallabstractargumentsbasedonly
onequity."31AstheCourthasstatedinLimTupasv.CA,32"[e]motionalappealsforjustice,whiletheymaywringthe
heartoftheCourt,cannotjustifydisregardofthemandateofthelawaslongasitremainsinforce.Theapplicable
maxim,whichgoesbacktotheancientdaysoftheRomanjuristsandisnowstillreverentlyobservedis'aequetas
nunquamcontravenitlegis.'"33

Accordingly,theCAdidnotcommitanyreversibleerrorwhenitappliedtherulesofprocedureinresolvingtheissue
athand.

Theapplicationfordamages
wasbelatedlyfiled

Section10,Rule60oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatinreplevincases,asinreceivershipandinjunctioncases,
the damages to be awarded to either party upon any bond filed by the other shall be claimed, ascertained, and
grantedinaccordancewithSection20ofRule57whichreads:

SEC.20.Claimfordamagesonaccountofillegalattachment.Ifthejudgmentontheactionbeinfavor
of the party against whom attachment was issued, he may recover, upon the bond given or deposit
madebytheattachingcreditor,anydamagesresultingfromtheattachment.Suchdamagesmaybe
awarded only upon application and after proper hearing, and shall be included in the final
judgment. The application must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the
judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching creditor and his surety or sureties,
settingforththefactsshowinghisrighttodamagesandtheamountthereof.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 4/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was
issued, he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an
applicationwithnoticetothepartyinwhosefavortheattachmentwasissuedorhissuretyorsureties,
before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the
applicationtobeheardanddecidedbythetrialcourt.[Emphasessupplied]

In other words, to recover damages on a replevin bond (or on a bond for preliminary attachment, injunction or
receivership),itisnecessary(1)thatthedefendantclaimanthassecuredafavorablejudgmentinthemainaction,
meaning that the plaintiff has no cause of action and was not, therefore, entitled to the provisional remedy of
replevin(2)thattheapplicationfordamages,showingclaimant'srighttheretoandtheamountthereof,befiledin
thesameactionbeforetrialorbeforeappealisperfectedorbeforethejudgmentbecomesexecutory(3)thatdue
noticebegiventotheotherpartyandhissuretyorsureties,noticetotheprincipalnotbeingsufficientand(4)that
thereshouldbeaproperhearingandtheawardfordamagesshouldbeincludedinthefinaljudgment.34

Likewise,toavoidmultiplicityofsuits,allincidentsarisingfromthesamecontroversymustbesettledinthesame
courthavingjurisdictionofthemainaction.Thus,theapplicationfordamagesmustbefiledinthecourtwhichtook
cognizanceofthecase,withduenoticetotheotherparties.35

Inthiscase,DBPfiledtheapplicationfordamageslongaftertheorderofdismissalhadbecomefinalandexecutory.
Itexplainedthatthisbelatedfilingwasduetoitsrecoursetootherremedies,suchastheenforcementofthewritof
execution. The Court, however, finds this reason to be wanting in persuasiveness. To begin with, the filing of an
applicationfordamagesdoesnotprecluderesorttootherremedies.NowhereintheRulesofCourtisitstatedthat
anapplicationfordamagesbarsthefilingofamotionforawritofseizure,awritofexecutionoranyotherapplicable
remedy.DBP,fromthebeginning,hadalreadyperceivedtheattachmenttobeimproperhence,itcouldhaveeasily
filedanapplicationbeforethejudgmentbecameexecutory.

InJaov.RoyalFinancingCorporation,36theCourtprecludedthedefendantthereinfromclaimingdamagesagainst
thesuretybondbecauseitfailedtofiletheapplicationfordamagesbeforetheterminationofthecase,thus:

xxxThedismissalofthecasefiledbytheplaintiffsappelleesonJuly11,1959,hadbecomefinaland
executory before the defendantappellee corporation filed its motion for judgment on the bond on
September 7, 1959. In the order of the trial court, dismissing the complaint, there appears no
pronouncementwhatsoeveragainstthesuretybond.Theappelleecorporationfailedtofileitsproper
applicationfordamagespriortotheterminationofthecaseagainstit.Itisbarredtodosonow.
Theprevailingparty,ifsuchwouldbethepropertermfortheappelleecorporation,havingfailedtofile
its application for damages against the bond prior to the entry of final judgment, the bondsman
appellantisrelievedoffurtherliabilitythereunder.[Emphasessupplied]37

Thus,theRTChasindeednoresidualjurisdictiononDBP'sclaimfordamages.

Remedies

The Court is not unmindful of the plight of DBP. Its chosen remedy, however, cannot be countenanced as it
disregardstheRulesofCourtandthesettledjurisprudenceonthematter.Nevertheless,thisisnottosaythatDBP
hasnootheravailableremediesinordertorecoverrespondents'indebtedness.

First,DBP could enforce its guarantee agreement with GFSME. A contract of guaranty gives rise to a subsidiary
obligationonthepartoftheguarantor.38Aguarantoragreesthatthecreditor,afterproceedingagainsttheprincipal,
mayproceedagainsttheguarantoriftheprincipalisunabletopay.Moreover,hecontractstopayif,bytheuseof
duediligence,thedebtcannotbemadeoutoftheprincipaldebtor.39

Further, it may file an action for damages based on Article 19 of the New Civil Code against respondents for
unlawfullytakingthecertificatesoftitle,whichservedassecurityfortheirloan.InGlobeMackayCableandRadio
Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,40theCourtheld:

Thisarticle,knowntocontainwhatiscommonlyreferredtoastheprincipleofabuseofrights,sets
certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights, but also in the
performanceofone'sduties.Thesestandardsarethefollowing:toactwithjusticetogiveeveryonehis
dueandtoobservehonestyandgoodfaith.Thelaw,therefore,recognizesaprimordiallimitationonall
rightsthatintheirexercise,thenormsofhumanconductsetforthinArticle19mustbeobserved.A
right,thoughbyitselflegalbecauserecognizedorgrantedbylawassuch,mayneverthelessbecome
thesourceofsomeillegality.Whenarightisexercisedinamannerwhichdoesnotconformwiththe
normsenshrinedinArticle19andresultsindamagetoanother,alegalwrongistherebycommittedfor
whichthewrongdoermustbeheldresponsible.ButwhileArticle19laysdownaruleofconductforthe
governmentofhumanrelationsandforthemaintenanceofsocialorder,itdoesnotprovidearemedy
foritsviolation.Generally,anactionfordamagesundereitherArticle20orArticle21wouldbeproper.41
[Emphasissupplied]
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 5/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
Finally, nothing precludes DBP from instituting an action for collection of sum of money against respondents.
1wphi1

Besides,iftheparcelsoflandcoveredbythecertificatesoftitle,whichDBPsoughttorecoverfromrespondents,
weremortgagedtotheformer,thenDBP,asmortgagecreditor,hastheoptionofeitherfilingapersonalactionfor
collectionofsumofmoneyorinstitutingarealactiontoforecloseonthemortgagesecurity.Thetworemediesare
alternativeandeachremedyiscompletebyitself.Ifthemortgageeoptstoforeclosetherealestatemortgage,he
waivestheactionforthecollectionofthedebt,andviceversa.42

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheJuly9,2008DecisionandtheJanuary21,2011ResolutionoftheCourt
ofAppeals,inCAG.R.SPNo.85719,areAFFIRMEDintoto.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

BIENVENIDOL.REYES* MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ActingChairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttotheSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionActingChairpersonsAttestation,Icertify
thattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*
DesignatedadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeANTONIOT.CARPIOperRaffledatedJanuary9,
2017.
1
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEdgardoT.LlorenwithAssociateJusticeEdgardoA.CamelloandAssociate
JusticeJaneAuroraC.Lantion,concurringrollo,pp.1825.
2
Id.at2728.
3
PennedbyPresidingJudgeEmmanuelC.Carpioid.at4951.
4
Id.at19.
5
Id.at5359.
6
Id.at6061.
7
Id.at62.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 6/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450
8
Id.at6872.
9
Id.at179183.
10
Id.at185187.
11
Id.at188190.
12
Id.at196197.
13
Id.at207211.
14
Id.at79.
15
Id.at8081.
16
Id.at8586.
17
Id.at90.
18
Id.at91.
19
Id.at218222.
20
Id.at2425.
21
Id.at9.
22
Id.at264281.
23
Id.at431440.
24
Section9,Rule41oftheRulesofCourt.
25
Section8,Rule42oftheRulesofCourt.
26
Angelesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.178733,September15,2014,735SCRA82,93.
27
Fernandezv.CourtofAppeals,497Phil.748,759(2005).
28
528Phil.1080(2006).
29
Id.at10931097.
30
PhilippineCarpetManufacturingCorporationv.Tagyamon,723Phil.562,572(2013).
31
Id.at572.
32
LimTupasv.CourtofAppeals,271Phil.628,632633(1991).
33
Id.at633.
34
MalayanInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.Salas,179Phil.201,206(1979)..
35
StrongholdInsuranceCo.Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,258APhil.690,699(1989).
36
114Phil.1152(1969).
37
Id.at1157.
38
SpousesOngv.PhilippineCommercialInternationalBank,489Phil.673,677(2005).
39
Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Asia Paces Corporation, 726 Phil.
555,566(2014).
40
257Phil.783(1989).
41
Id.at788789.
42
BPIFamilySavingsBank,Inc.v.Vda.DeCoscolluela,526Phil.419,439(2006).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 7/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 195450

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_195450_2017.html 8/8

You might also like