Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aguilar V Manila Banking Corp GR No. 157911
Aguilar V Manila Banking Corp GR No. 157911
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
* FIRST DIVISION.
355
356
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
357
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
358
359
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
360
361
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, J.:
362
_______________
363
_______________
4 Id., at p. 40.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
5 Id., at p. 49.
6 Id., at p. 52.
7 Id., at p. 53.
8 Id.
364
_______________
9 Id., at p. 55.
10 Id., at p. 56.
11 Id., at p. 58.
12 Id., at p. 59.
13 Id., at p. 61.
14 Id., at p. 240.
365
_______________
15 Id., at p. 246.
16 Id., at p. 62.
17 Id., at p. 72.
18 Id., at p. 68.
366
ANNOTATED
Aguilar vs. Manila Banking Corporation
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
19 Id., at p. 99.
20 Id., at p. 102.
21 Id., at p. 104.
22 Id., at p. 105.
23 Entitled, “Manuel Aguilar and Yolanda Aguilar v. The
Manila Banking Corporation,” Annex “J” of the Comment,
Id., at p. 262.
24 CA Rollo, p. 106.
25 Id., at p. 107.
26 Id., at p. 77.
27 Id., at p. 79.
367
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
28 Id., at p. 82.
29 Id., at p. 359.
30 Id., at p. 108.
31 Id., at p. 134.
32 Id., at p. 136.
33 Id., at p. 140.
34 Id., at p. 148.
35 Id., at pp. 154 and 164.
368
petitioners filed
36
on February 5, 2002 a Motion
for Inhibition. A day later, on February 6,
2002, Judge Manalastas granted the motion for
37
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
37
inhibition. Thus, the case was again reraffled
and was assigned to Branch 167 presided by
Judge Jesus G. Bersamira. On February 13,
2002, respondent filed again 38
a Motion to
Resolve Pending Incidents.
On March 22 and 26, 2002, both parties filed 39
separate Urgent Motions to Resolve the case.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a Manifestation
and Motion that the Letter dated40
June 7, 1991
be marked as their exhibit. RTC Branch 167
in its Order dated April 30, 2002 admitted 41
the
exhibit over the objections of respondent.
On May 24, 2002, RTC Branch 167 rendered
its Omnibus Order denying the Omnibus
Motion to quash the writ of execution and for
consignation, as well as the motion to cite
petitioners in contempt and the ex parte motion
for an order to divest petitioners’ title to
respondent. It held that there was no novation
because there was no incompatibility between
the Letter dated June 7, 1991 and the Decision
dated January 30, 1987 with the former only
providing for a more liberal scheme of payment
and grant of reduced interest; that petitioners’
claim that respondent’s receivership and the
Letter dated June 7, 1991 are supervening
events which rendered the execution unjust
and impossible is unavailing since there is
nothing on record to indicate that such
circumstances resulted in unfairness and
injustice to petitioners if execution of judgment
is carried out; that petitioner’s claim that the
judgment could no longer be executed by mere
motion after the fiveyear period had elapsed
from its finality is specious since any
interruption or delay occasioned by petitioners
will ex
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
36 Id., at p. 168.
37 Id., at p. 170.
38 Id., at p. 400.
39 Id., at pp. 171 and 175.
40 Id., at p. 424.
41 Id., at p. 426.
369
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
42 Id., at p. 32.
43 Id., at p. 35.
44 Id., at p. 39.
45 Id., at p. 2.
46 Supra note 1.
47 Id., at p. 507.
48 Supra note 2.
370
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
371
_______________
50 Id., at p. 173.
51 Id., at p. 648.
52 Id., at p. 163.
372
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
373
_______________
374
_______________
375
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
376
_______________
377
67
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
67
favorable decision or action, the peculiar
circumstances attendant in this case bate out a
situation akin to forum shopping—there is only
one court involved, RTC Pasig City, but the
issue of prescription was ultimately resolved by
two different branches thereof—Branches 165
and 167.
Petitioners first raised before RTC Branch
165 the issue of prescription of the execution of
the decision by mere motion. Said RTC Branch
165 ruled against petitioners and the court’s
order thereon became final and executory.
Petitioners raised the issue again in an
Omnibus Motion with the same RTC Branch
165. However, they moved for the inhibition of
the presiding judge hearing the issue not only
once, but twice, both motions granted in their
favor and the case was successively raffled and
assigned to two different branches of RTC
Pasig, first to Branch 268 and then to Branch
167, which ruled against petitioners.
Through the motions for inhibition of the
presiding judges and the assignment of the
case to different branches of the same court,
petitioners sought to obtain from one branch a
ruling more favorable than the ruling of
another branch. They deliberately sought a
friendly branch of the same court to grant them
the relief that they wanted, despite the finality
of the resolution of one branch on the matter.
This is a permutation of forum shopping. It
trifles with the courts, abuses their processes,
degrades the administration
68
of justice, and
congests court dockets.
Be it remembered that the grave evil sought
to be avoided by the rules against forum
shopping is the rendition by two competent
tribunals of two separate, and contradictory
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
378
_______________
379
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
380
_______________
381
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
382
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/44
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
383
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634a52e206edf6e6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/44