Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1949
MAMERTO RAMIREZ, ET AL., petitioner,
vs.
FIDEL IBAÑEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, ET AL., respondents.
Juan S. Rustia for petitioners.
Reyes & Castañeda and Jose M. Luison for respondents.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon for the Government.
Calanog & Alafriz for respondent Segundo Mastrili.
PERFECTO, J.:
Petitioner allege in substance the following:
That Rev. P. Leo A. Cullum has instigated N.V. Sinclair to disregard and violate the provision of Act 3, Title 26, Book 1 of the Novisima Recopilacion which provided for the expulsion from Philippines of the priests of the Company of Jesus and the confiscation of their properties and temporalities and their incorporation to the Crown and that according to said provision put into effect by the Real Cedula of Queen Isabel II, dated October 19, 1852, the said priests are perpetually prohibited from recovering said properties which include the lands now known as the San Pedro Tunasan Estate in the municipality of San Pedro Laguna;
That N.V. Sinclair under the name of "El Colegio de San Jose." which failed in 1915 to register as a unipersonal corporation instituted in the Court of First Instance of Laguna on December 10, 1947, an action against 53 person for the recovery of sum of P433,307.61 as alleged rents in arrears due before the war from the properties involved in this case.
That no one of petitioner is a defendant in said action civil case No. 9039, and that petitioner are exclusive owners of their respective lands in the municipal of San Pedro and that their crops off palay in said parcels are not litigated in said case;
That the new complaint based on a decision previously rendered in civil case NO. 6663 against several residents of San Pedro has been filed with malice in violation of section 6 of Rule 39, Rule of Court — which requires the filing of a new action based on the original claim — with knowledge of plaintiff that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter that the money claim falls under the law of moratorium and after the cause of action based on case No. 6663 was renounced in favor of the Commonwealth of the Philippines by Rev. John F. Hurley (then the Superior of the Company of Jesus) in a public document eluted on September 27, 1939;
That said Rev. Leo F. Cullum and N.V. Sinclair secured on December 10, 1947, thru misrepresentation the appointment ex parte as receiver of respondent Segundo Mastrili who since December 15, 1947, with the assistance of officers and soldier of the military police have prohibited petitioners from gathering and taking a single grain of crop of palay from picking any fruit from their trees and from plowing or sowing any part of their lands without the permission of said receiver to the extent of detaining without judicial warrant Ricardo Gerodias and Florencio Ambayec of maltreating Enrique Marcellana and causing contusion to Marcos Vierneza due to blows inflicted on several parts of his body;
That as result about 3, 500 cavanes of palay have been exposed to destruction by the element nature and of being eaten by birds and field animals;
That the MP officers and soldier assisting the receiver have been acting under the command of Brigadier General Castañeda and on order of the Secretary of Justice;
That instead of stopping the acts of the other respondents the respondent judge issued on December 16, 1947 an order requiring the person mentioned in the charge dated December 15, 1947, to appear in court on December 22, 1947 for an investigation of charges for contempt; and,
That should said order be allowed to continue in force the petitioners and their respective families will be put in danger of enduring hunger other suffering and irreparable damages due to the acts of respondents.
As remedies petitioner pray that not being parties in civil case No. 9039. they be not held amenable to any order that may be issued in said case and that respondents be ordered not to interfere with or prevent petitioners from harvesting their crop of palay in their respective lands.
Attached to the petitioner is a copy of the summons in case No. 9039 and of the order of December 10, 1947, appointing Segundo C. Mastrili as receiver to take possession of the properties and improvement involved in case No. 6663 (Guevara vs. Young ), where judgment is sought to be revived in said case and also a copy of the complaint in case No. 9039.
Petitioner having prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, respondents, opposed the prayer alleging:
That there is no urgency for the issuance of said writ of preliminary injunction because the crops are being harvested by the tenants under the supervision of the receiver and those already harvested constitute only one-sixth of the total estimated crop as the remaining five-sixth are the total estimated crop as the remaining five-sixth are not yet ready for harvest;
That the laborer or harvesters receive their share right in the field immediately after the harvest while the shares of the tenants could not as yet be delivered because the palay has to be stocked and dried and said shares are usually delivered after the threshing something during the months of February and March;
That in case No. 6663, the judgment of which is sought to be revived a receiver has also been appointed;
That the Colegio de San Jose did not transfer to the Commonwealth of the Philippines its right to the Judgment in its favor in civil case No. 6663 with respect to the agricultural which are now the subject of controversy but only its right therein pertaining to the portion of the hacienda used as homesites;
That since the judgment in case No. 6663 sought to be revived order the ejection of the defendant due to their default in the payment of the annual rental and the sum of P433,307. 61 mentioned in the complaint represents rents prior to liberation and the rents from December 1945 amounting to P90,000, the subject matter is not within the purview of the moratorium: and
That the petition for the issuance of writ of prohibition is premature because the motion for reconsideration of the order appointing the receiver is still pending resolution by respondent judge.
On January 13, 1948 this Court allowed the intervention in this case as co-petition of 75 other person.
On march 22, 1948 by majority resolution this Court denied petitioner prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
This case was heard on the merits in Baguio on May 19, 1948 at which hearing the parties submitted a written agreement which read as follows;
Ambas partes convienen:
El depositario retendra los 30 por ciento de la cosecha (Sujeto a las ordened del Juzgado la cosecha liquida sera retenida por el depositario) y dejara los 70 por ciento como participacion del aparcero al que labra actualmente el terreno. Y los que actualmente laborean el terreno continuaran trabajandolo su respectiva parcela bajo la adminintracion supervision y control del depositario entendiendose sin embargo que todo aqui constatado no afectara el resultado del asunto pendiente en el Juzgado de primera instancia de Laguna; y ambas partes firmaran un recibo en duplicado de la participacion que ha recibido cada uno.
Baguio Mayo 19, 1948.
Conforme:
(Fdo.) JUAN S. RUSTIA
(Fdo.) MANUEL A. CALANOG
(Fdo.) DEOGRACIAS REYES
(Fdo.) JOSE M. LUISON
(Fdo.) ROBERTO GUIANZON
On April 8, 1948 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of this court of March 22, 1948 which denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. That motion was kept under advisement to be consideration upon the decision of the case on the merits.
Petitioner also files a petitioner on August 7, 1948 praying that respondents be enjoined from acting on a petitioner filed with the Court of first Instance of Laguna by the receiver for the issuance of a writ preliminary injunction to prohibit Attorney Rustia and the mayor of San Pedro Laguna as well as all their attorneys agent employees privies and/or representatives from going into the field under the administration of the receiver and in a resolution of August 13, 1948 this Court ordered that said petition be acted upon when the case is decided on the merits.
Because all the question involved in this case have been practically disposed of by the resolution of this Court dated March 22, 1948 the same is reproduced hereunder together with the dissenting opinion of the writer of this decision:
The Reiteracion de la Peticion de Interdicto Prohibitorio Preliminar filed by counsel for petitioner in L-1873, Ramirez et al vs. Judge Ibañez et al., is denied it appearing that respondent Judge had given the parties a chance to be heard on the question of privity and identity of the land and that instead of arguing at the hearing the present case was immediately brought here. Mr. Justice Perfection dissented in a separate opinion.
Separate Opinions
PERFECTO, J., dissenting:
The fact that due course has been given to this case is an evidence that upon the pleading this Court has found that the petition is meritorious. Otherwise this court would have dismissed the petition from very beginning without causing respondents the trouble of appearing and showing their side of the question.
Upon the above premise the writ of preliminary injunction prayed by petitioner appears to be necessary so as to save petitioners from further irreparable damages.
Petitioner's contention that they have never been a party in the original case upon the decision of which the receivership proceeding through which they are being deprived of the products of their labor the crops that cost them time effort, work, capital is based appears to be well taken and fully supported by the very pleading in the lower court. It will be extremely unjust not to maintain the status quo and to condemn them to starvation Tantalian wise at the very sight of the crop they raised even to touch which they are prohibited the physical force at respondents' command.
Respondents plight appears plight appears to be more pitiable by the attitude shown by respondents at the hearing of this case in which the receiver made the express commitment to allow petitioner to take their respective crops upon condition that they will furnish the receiver data as to the amount of said crop for record purposes. Petitioner accepted the condition and the parties were allowed to withdraw from the hearing so as to put in writing the verbal agreement made before us. When both parties submitted their pleading on February 16, 1948, the very date of the hearing the receiver appeared to have backed out from the agreement disregarding completely the commitment made before us open court. This showing of bad faith should not be ignored by the Supreme Court nor rewarded by a denial of the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction.
It has been said repeatedly that party litigants must appear before the court of justice with clean hands to deserve hearing and remedy. In this case the respondent receiver has appeared before us with hands tainted with bad faith and the victim of the dirty trick wantonly performed before our own eyes are deprived of the remedy they are entitled to.
We dissent from the majority resolution.
The main purpose of petitioner in this case is to enjoin respondents from deriving said petitioner of possession of the lands claimed by them and of the crops therein involved in the receivership in case No. 9039, upon the main theory that petitioners are not parties to said case nor parties or privies in case No. 6663, whose judgment is intended to be revived in case No. 9039.
The majority of this court are of opinion that before petitioners can seek any remedy from this Court they must wait for the action of respondent judge on the two question namely as to whether or not petitioner are privies of the defendants in case Nos. 6663 and 9039 of the lower court and as to the identity of the lands in question in said case it appearing that respondent judge had given the petitioner a chance to be heard on said question.
For all the foregoing with the writer of this opinion dissenting the petition is dismissed with cost. In view of this result the two pending incidental petitions are also denied.
Moran, C.J. Pablo, Bengzon, Briones and Tuason, JJ., concur.
Paras, J., concurs in this result.
Feria, J., concurs in the dismissal of the petition.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
