Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Losloso vs. Corpuz
Losloso vs. Corpuz
Court of Appeals
Manila
FIFTH DIVISION
JOSEPH F. LOSLOSO
ELIZABETH F. LOSLOSO,
Petitioners,
Members:
CARANDANG, R., Chairman
ROSARIO, R ., and
REAL-DIMAGIBA, L.., JJ.
-versus-
PROMULGATED:
August 12, 2013
_______________________
Respondents.
DECISION
REAL-DIMAGIBA, J.:
Before
application
the Court
for
is a
Temporary
Petition
for
Restraining
Certiorari with
Order
and/or
page 2 of 17
DECISION
Civil Procedure assailing the public respondent's Joint Order1
dated
06
insofar as the
denial of
the
The Facts
against spouses
Herminigildo
Dela
Cruz
and
herein
petitioners Joseph
F.
Losloso
and
Dela
Cruz's
sister) and
her
husband
Johnny
page 3 of 17
DECISION
Branch 27 (trial court).
the
completed on 06
December
2008;
by
way
of
payment,
January
2009;
two
days
their
given
address
known
habitual
in
page 4 of 17
DECISION
properties
T-151448,
T-151449
and
T-
151450.
xxx
xxx
page 5 of 17
DECISION
emphasize that the plaintiff should have proven that there
was a hearing on the principal action and a judgment was
rendered by the court which has become final and
executory and a writ of execution issued which failed
because the said defendant spouses do not have any
properties xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
page 6 of 17
DECISION
defendants impressed with merit. xxx The facts and
circumstances unraveled in the proceedings held during
scheduled hearings will give the impression that
rescission will lie as shown by the attached documents
and various conveyances of real properties executed by
the defendant spouses Herminigildo and Norma at a time
they had to pay their obligations to several creditors
amounting to millions of pesos. To the mind of this court,
these motions to dismiss will not lie because there is a
need to thresh out factual issues one of which is
whether or not the defendant Spouses Herminigildo
and Norma have properties for their indebtedness to
the plaintiff.
With the declaration of the court in its Order on
January 27, 2010 that the defendant Spouses Herminigildo
and Norma are in default for their failure to file their
Answer or any responsive pleading to the plaintiff's
Complaint, it should then be proper and appropriate to
have the present civil case proceed and take its course
so that the plaintiff could prove that these defendants do
not have properties.
And with the foregoing findings which similarly affect
them as they, being registered property co-owners with
defendant Spouses Herminigildo and Norma of that land
then covered by TCT No. T-113159, are to be prejudiced
by any action of the court against their co-vendors and
the vendees, herein defendants Losloso, the defendant
Spouses Sevillena must necessarily file their Answer to the
plaintiff's Complaint.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing:
1. The Omnibus Motion consisting of Motion to Strike (sic)
the Names of Spouses Johnny and Gracia Sevillena and
Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
the court hereby directs the defendant Spouses Sevillena to
file their Answer to the plaintiff's Complaint within the period
allowed by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Motion to Dismiss in the form of affirmative
defenses embodied in the individual Answers of defendants
Losloso and defendant Spouses Harold and Clariss are
both DENIED for lack of merit.
page 7 of 17
DECISION
On 02 June 2010, herein petitioners, siblings Joseph F.
Losloso and Elizabeth F. Losloso, filed a motion for inhibition
against the public respondent on the ground that in his 23 March
2010 Order, he has already shown bias by prejudging not only
the collection case against spouses Dela Cruz but also the
accion pauliana against them and their other co-defendants.
They claimed that the public respondent
appears to have
HPI when he
still
have
remaining properties.
They
also
as
shown
by
the
attached
documents of
various
page 8 of 17
DECISION
are not sufficient grounds to disqualify him from hearing the
case. Accordingly, he denied petitioners' Motion for Inhibition
and motion for reconsideration of the 23 March 2010 Order.
the
WHETHER THE
RESPONDENT
JUDGE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO INHIBIT
HIMSELF FROM HANDLING THE CASE A
QUO WHEN HE HAS CLEARLY PREJUDGED
THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS,
BOTH IN THE COLLECTION AND ACCION
PAULIANA SUITS.8
Ruling
First, We take
rendered by
this
judicial
notice
of
the
Decision 9
CA-G.R. SP No.
The second issue raised by petitioner is the same as first although worded differently, as follows:
Whether the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in rejecting the request for his recusal, Rollo, p. 12
Ibid. at 717-725
Composed then of Justice Amelita Tolentino, as Chairman, with Justices Ramon Garcia and
Samuel Gaerlan as members
page 9 of 17
DECISION
Rogelio Corpuz and Holcim Philippines, Inc. on 15 June 2012
wherein
herein
petitioners
sought
the
nullification
of
the
Joint
Order dated 06 October 2010 both for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion.
page 10 of 17
DECISION
In
the
present
petition,
petitioners raise
no
new
They
them
declarations
of
the
page 11 of 17
DECISION
against the petitioners. In the assailed Joint Order of 06
October 2001, the public respondent assured the petitioners
that their fear is baseless. He clarified that
March
2010
petitioners
to
file
page 12 of 17
DECISION
The clarification made in the assailed 06 October 2010
Order of the public respondent reads, thus:
page 13 of 17
DECISION
The rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges is laid
down in Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court:
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or
judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or
child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within
the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the
civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in
any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.
12
BGen. (Ret.) Ramiscal. Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 173057-74. September 27, 2010 citing
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 355,
360-361, citing Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 446 (2003) and People v. Kho, G.R. No. 139381, April
20, 2001, 357 SCRA 290, 296.
G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 612, 632.
page 14 of 17
DECISION
when the charge is without basis. This ruling was reiterated in
the recent case of Rodica v. Lazaro,
et.
al.13
It
is well
to
Order
issued with
denying
grave
petitioners'
abuse
of
motion to dismiss ,
discretion, does
not
of
the dispute.
could
not
page 15 of 17
DECISION
conjecture and is not one of the just or valid reasons contemplated
in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court for which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case.
Moreover, opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings,
as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct
observed by the judge, even if found later on to be erroneous, do
not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. 16
Accordingly,
petitioners'
bare
allegations
of
the
public
page 16 of 17
DECISION
for we all err. 18
The Resolutions
concerned is
SO OREDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ROSMARI D. CARANDANG
Associate Justice
18
RICARDO R. ROSARIO
Associate Justice
Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, et al., G.R.
No. 171137. June 5, 2009
page 17 of 17
DECISION
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ROSMARI D. CARANDANG
Associate Justice
Chairman, Fifth Division