Balanoba vs. Madriaga

9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 475 9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 475
impugnment of a judgment or final order by the filing of

successive motions for reconsideration. This rule is also consistent
with the equally important policy that all litigations must come to
an end at some point. The filing of successive motions is certainly
not the case here.
Same; Same; Judgments; Doctrine of Immutability of Final
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Judgments; It is a well-settled rule that once a final judgment or
Balanoba vs. Madriaga order has become final and executory—more so when it has
already been executed—it may no longer be amended or corrected
*
by the court, except for clerical errors or mistakes and only in a few
G.R. No. 160109. November 22, 2005.
exceptional cases.—At the time Rebecca’s Motion and
Manifestation was filed before the trial court, the judgment in
SPOUSES GERMAN and ELISA BALANOBA and
respondent’s favor had already become final and executory. It is a
REBECCA DE SAGON MADRIAGA, petitioners, vs.
well-settled rule that once a final judgment or order becomes final
MANUEL D. MADRIAGA, respondent.
and executory—more so when it has already been executed—it
may no longer be amended or corrected by the court, except for
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Motions for Reconsideration; clerical errors or mistakes and only in a few exceptional cases,
Winning litigants may also move for reconsideration of a part or none of which obtains in the present case. A final judgment
parts of a decision or a final order, and in the event that the stands immutable; otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.
motion is denied, an attempt at a second motion for A judgment that has attained finality constitutes the ultimate
reconsideration would be prohibited.—The provision states: “No adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties and
party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a becomes valid and binding upon them and their successors in
judgment or final order.” Plainly, this statement means that any interest.
party—whether the winning or the losing litigant—is prohibited Same; Same; Same; Same; Exceptions.—Among the
from filing a second motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments or
winning litigants may also move for reconsideration of a part or orders is the existence of supervening events, which refer to facts
parts of a decision or a final order. In the event that the motion is transpiring after the judgment has become final and executory; or
denied, an attempt at a second motion for reconsideration would to new circumstances that develop after the judgment has
be prohibited under the afore-quoted provision. acquired finality—including matters that the parties were not
Same; Same; Same; What is proscribed under Section 5 of aware of prior to or during the trial, as they were not yet in
Rule 37 is a second motion for reconsideration of a “judgment or existence at the time. (See Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of
final order.”—What is proscribed under Section 5 of Rule 37 is a Appeals, 440 Phil. 1, 23; 391 SCRA 370, 381, November 12, 2002;
second motion for reconsideration of a “judgment or final order.” and Jose Clavano, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory
The provision is consonant with public policy that frowns upon Board, supra, p. 228; p. 192). A final judgment may also be
the piecemeal modified when its execution becomes impossible or unjust. (See
Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, 441 Phil. 386, 393-394; 393
SCRA 134, 140, November 27, 2002.)
_______________
Same; Same; Same; Intervention; A post-judgment Motion
* THIRD DIVISION. and Manifestation in the nature of a motion for intervention
should be filed before judgment is rendered as provided under
Section 2 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.—As the trial court
689 correctly observed, Re-
690
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 689
Balanoba vs. Madriaga

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Balanoba vs. Madriaga The Case

1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of2 the
becca’s post-judgment Motion and Manifestation was in the
Rules of Court, assailing the June 27, 2003 Decision and
nature of a motion for intervention. Therefore, it should have been 3
the October 3, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
filed before judgment was rendered, as provided under Section 2
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 63912. The CA disposed as follows:
of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. As the case was already
terminated upon the rendition of the final judgment, intervention “Wherefore, in view of the foregoing premises, the petition is
4
was no longer possible. Significantly, prior to judgment, DENIED for lack of merit.”
petitioners could have tried to include Rebecca as a party to the
suit, under Sections 4 and 9 of Rule 3. But they did not. The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; Any claim for exemption of execution
must be clearly established.—Apropos this contention, the Court
reiterates the rule in Gaa v. Court of Appeals that the exemption The Facts
under Article 1708 of the Civil Code favors only laboring men or
women whose work is manual. Belonging to this class are the The CA narrated the antecedents as follows:
workers who usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for
“On June 5, 1996, x x x respondent Manuel D. Madriaga filed an
immediate or present support. They, more than any other
action for collection of a sum of money with damages.
persons, are the ones in need of the exemption which, needless to
“[He] claimed that: a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 7815
say, does not encompass any and all workers. With more reason
was offered for sale by the petitioners spouses to [him]; accepting
should it be said that any claim for exemption must be clearly
the offer, [he] paid a partial payment in the amount of
established. Because it was not proven that German Balanoba
P200,000.00 through Abraham de Sagun, broker of the lot and
was a mere laborer, no error may be ascribed to the CA for ruling
brother [of] petitioner Elisa Balanoba; the remaining balance of
that his salary was not exempt from execution.
P250,000.00 was supposed to be paid within a period of 16 months
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and or from February 11, 1993 until June 11, 1994; on April 25, 1993,
resolution of the Court of Appeals. the private respondent paid to petitioners US$600; but before the
lapse of the period of x x x 16 months and without the knowledge
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. of the x x x respondent, petitioners sold the same lot to a certain
Jaso, Salgado, Neri Law Office for petitioners. Yolanda C. Aguilon; in May 1994, x x x respondent offered to
Pangasinan & Pangasinan Law Office for settle the remaining balance over the lot with the petitioners but
respondent. they refused to convey the property; and, despite demands, x x x
petitioners failed to reimburse the x x x respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
_______________
In affirming the Court of Appeals, this Court holds (1) that
the prohibition against second motions for reconsideration 1 Rollo, pp. 8-13.
applies only to judgments or final orders, not to orders 2 Id., pp. 45-54. Penned by Justice B. A. Adefuin-De la Cruz (Chairman,
authorizing the execution of final judgments; (2) that once Special Ninth Division) and concurred in by Justices Juan Q. Enriquez Jr.
a decision becomes final and executory, it may no longer be and Hakim S. Abdulwahid (members).
amended; and (3) that exemptions from execution must be 3 Id., p. 56.
clearly established. 4 CA Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 54.
691
692
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 691


“For failure of petitioner[s] to file their answer, the trial court, respect to the execution partially satisfied.
upon motion of x x x respondent, declared them in default and the “x x x. Respondent filed his Second Motion for Reconsideration
x x x respondent was allowed to present his evidence ex parte. dated September 18, 2000, alleging, among others, that he has
“On November 21, 1996, the trial court rendered its Decision caused the rectification of the discrepancy in the amounts
[in favor of respondent]. collected and the remaining balance payable which showed that
xxxxxxxxx less the amount already collected as per garnishment previously
“On August 9, 2000, x x x respondent filed his Motion for issued, the outstanding balance of petitioners as of September 19,
Issuance of a Notice of Garnishment, praying that a Notice of 2000 stands at P221,911.11.
Garnishment be issued by the trial court directing the garnishee “On September 22, 2000, the trial court denied x x x
Bandila Maritime Services, Inc., petitioner German Balanoba’s respondent’s [second] motion for reconsideration for the reason
employer to deliver goods, effects, interests, money shares or that the life of the original writ has already expired. The court,
other personal property belonging to the said petitioner sufficient however, admonished x x x respondent to move, instead, x x x for
to satisfy the amount of the judgment. the issuance of an alias writ with a notice to the petitioners.
“On August 15, 2000, petitioners spouses filed their Opposition, “On September 26, 2000, petitioners filed their Comment
(Re: Motion for the Issuance of a Notice of Garnishment), praying and/or Opposition x x x on the ground that, under Section 5, Rule
that the motion be denied on the ground, among others, that the 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, no party shall be allowed
money judgment is part of the community property of spouses a second motion for reconsideration.
Manuel Madriaga and Rebecca de Sagon Madriaga; that Rebecca “The x x x respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
S. Madriaga was entitled to one half (1/2) of the monetary Prayer for the Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution dated October
judgment being the wife of the x x x respondent; and that Rebecca 12, 2000.
S. Madriaga, through her attorney-in-fact and counsel, condoned “On November 15, 2000, the trial court, for the purpose of
and waived her right to the one half (1/2) portion of the monetary determining accurately the unpaid balance of the judgment
award in favor of the petitioners. rendered on November 21, 1996, issued an Order directing the x x
“On August 22, 2000, the trial court denied x x x respondent’s x respondent and the Branch Sheriff to submit to the said court a
Motion for Issuance of a Notice of Garnishment on the ground computation under oath of how much has been satisfied out of the
that the litigated motion does not comply with Section 5, Rule 15 judgment.
of the Rules of Court; that the motion does not indicate the “x x x [R]espondent filed a Compliance dated November 27,
balance of the judgment which has not yet been satisfied; the trial 2000, asserting that, after conference with the implementing
court does not issue a notice of garnishment but the Branch Sheriff, a total of P148,790.39 of the judgment debt was satisfied
Sheriff implementing the writ of execution. by the petitioners, leaving the amount of P236,696.20 as balance
“x x x. Respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration dated and collectible amount from the petitioners as of November 27,
August 25, 2000, alleging that the failure to observe and comply 2000.
with Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court was due to “On November 29, 2000, petitioners filed their Motion for
inadvertence and negligence on his part, x x x and that a total of Reconsideration, arguing, among others, that, x x x respondent
One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand (P148,000.00) has already was still married to Rebecca S. De Sagon; that the spouses were
been collected from the judgment obligee, the remaining balance blessed with children; that x x x respondent filed and refused to
to be collected was computed in Annex ‘A’ of the foregoing motion. give financial support to his wife and son since April 1999; and
“On September 8, 2000, the trial court denied petitioner’s that he personally pocketed the amount he obtained from the
motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same was not petitioners without giving a single centavo to his wife and child.
filed by
694
693

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 693
“On December 15, 2000, the trial court issued an Order, ruling
his counsel of record, and that the amount paid per Annex ‘A’ of that the Compliance submitted by counsel for the petitioner[s]
the motion does not tally with the partial returns of the Sheriff in was not in accordance with the Order of November 15, 2000, and
directing the x x x respondent and the Branch Sheriff to comply waiver of rights was allowed during marriage except in
strictly with the said Order. case of judicial separation of property; and (2) ordering the
“On December 22, 2000, petitioners submitted their issuance of an alias writ to enforce the unpaid balance of
Compliance, stating that it was submitting the original copy of P251,643,398 as of November 21, 2000.
the Registry Return to show that x x x respondent received a copy In a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, petitioners
of the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated November 29, charged the trial court with having gravely abused its
2000[, which] was filed on even date. discretion in allowing respondent to file four Motions for
“On January 2, 2001, x x x respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration; and in denying the Manifestation and
Reconsideration to the Order dated December 15, 2000, praying Motion of his wife, Rebecca Madriaga.
that the Order of December 15, 2000 be reconsidered; that the
Order of November 15, 2000 be deemed complied with by the x x x
respondent by virtue of the re-computation submitted; and that Ruling of the Court of Appeals
the computation filed earlier with the Compliance be withdrawn;
The CA sustained the trial court’s grant of respondent’s
and that the recomputation be admitted instead.
series of Motions. Construing Section 5 of Rule 37 of the
“On January 3, 2001, petitioner Rebecca De Sagon Madriaga
Rules of Court in relation to Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the
filed a Manifestation and Motion, alleging, among others, that the
same Rule, it held that the prohibition on “second motions
money judgment was part of the community of property between
for reconsideration” applied only to an aggrieved party, not
her husband (x x x respondent) and herself; that being the wife of
to a winning litigant like respondent; and also only to
the x x x respondent and there being a pending case for
judgments and final orders.
declaration of nullity of their marriage, she was entitled to one
The appellate court also found that the trial court had
half portion of the monetary judgment; and that she voluntarily
not gravely abused its discretion in denying the
condoned, waived/or abandoned in favor [of] the petitioners her
Manifestation and Motion of respondent’s wife, Rebecca.
right to the one half portion of the monetary award. The motion
She was not a party to the case; neither was she a party to
prayed that the Motion for Reconsideration with prayer for the
the Contract between petitioners and respondent. Besides,
issuance of alias writ of execution should be dismissed.
the CA considered as irrelevant to the present case the
“x x x [R]espondent filed his Opposition/Comments to the
question of whether the money judgment was conjugal
Manifestation and Motion filed by Rebecca De Sagon Madriaga
property. It said that the issue should properly be the
dated January 4, 2001, alleging that the Manifestation and
subject of another proceeding.
Motion was in the nature of an intervention which is not in
As to the claimed exemption from garnishment of
accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of Court; that the filing of
German Balanoba’s salary under Article 1708 of the Civil
the same has unduly delayed or prejudiced the rights of the x x x
Code, the CA emphasized that describing him as a “mere
respondent already pronounced in the Decision which has become
seafarer”—without specifically pointing out his position,
final and partially executed; and that the claim of Rebecca de
functions, duties and responsibilities—did not establish
Sagon, if there be any, could rightfully be ventilated in a separate
5 that he was merely a laborer. As a seafarer employed with
proceeding.”
a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, he
was earning more than
_______________
696
5 Id., pp. 2-5 & 46-49.
695 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 695
Balanoba vs. Madriaga an ordinary wage earner or laborer. Thus, the CA surmised
that it was very unlikely that he was a “laborer,” under the
contemplation of Article 1708.
On January 31, 2001, the trial court issued an Order (1) 6
Hence this Petition.
denying the Manifestation and Motion of Rebecca De Sagon
Madriaga, because she was not a party to the case, and no
only the losing or “aggrieved party” was prohibited from

filing a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or
Issues
final order.
In their Memorandum, petitioners submit that the CA Indeed, the CA’s pronouncement was quite sweeping.
erred as follows: Thus, we clarify.
First, the aforementioned provision states: “No party
“A. shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final order.” Plainly, this statement means
In concluding that Section 5, paragraph 2 [of Rule 37] of the 1997 that any party—whether the winning or the losing litigant
Rules of Civil Procedure refers only to the aggrieved party and not —is prohibited from filing a second motion for
likewise to the winning party. reconsideration. Accordingly, winning litigants may also
move for reconsideration of a part or parts of a decision or a
“B.
final order. In the event that the motion is denied, an
In declaring that Petitioner Rebecca De Sagon Madriaga was attempt at a second motion for reconsideration would be
not a party to the case and therefore cannot ask for the reliefs prohibited under the afore-quoted provision.
prayed for by her. Second, note, though, that what is proscribed under
Section 5 of Rule 37 is a second motion for reconsideration
“C. of a “judgment or final order.” The provision is consonant
with public policy that frowns upon the piecemeal
In declaring that Petitioner Balanoba failed to demonstrate
impugnment of a judgment or final order by the filing of
that he was a mere laborer whose7 wages are exempt from
successive motions for reconsideration. This rule is also
execution within the ambit of the law.”
consistent with the equally important policy 8
that all
litigations must come to an end at some point. The filing of
successive motions is certainly not the case here.
The Court’s Ruling As may be noted, the November 21, 1996 Decision of the
trial court was already final and executory; yet, respondent
The Petition is not meritorious. has obtained only a partial execution of his money
judgment. It was precisely to effect a full execution that he
First Issue: filed on August 9, 2000, a “Motion for Issuance of a Notice
Motions for Reconsideration of Garnish-
Petitioners take issue with the appellate court’s ruling that _______________
under paragraph 2, Section 5 of Rule 37 of the Rules Court,
8 So v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 705, 711; 363 SCRA 473, 478, August
21, 2001; Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc.,
_______________
412 Phil. 77, 80; 359 SCRA 491, 493, June 25, 2001; Ortigas and Company
6 The Petition was deemed submitted for decision on July 13, 2004, Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 490; 254 SCRA 234,
upon the Court’s receipt of respondent’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. 241, March 4, 1996; Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, 163 SCRA 237, 245, June 30,
Mina Joy C. Pangasinan of Pangasinan & Pangasinan Law Office. 1988.
Petitioners’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. Prosencio D. Jaso, was received
by the Court on June 4, 2004. 698
7 Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 10-11; Rollo, pp. 270-271. Original in
uppercase.
697 Balanoba vs. Madriaga
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 697 ment.” The series of “Motions for Reconsideration” he
subsequently filed referred to matters attendant to a
complete execution of the Decision in his favor. Those
Motions were not for the reconsideration of the final questioned “Motion for Reconsideration” 15
was levelled
judgment. against this December 15, 2000 Order.
Third, except for respondent’s first Motion for Be that as it may, the CA did not err in sustaining the
Reconsideration, his succeeding Motions were actually in trial court’s actions allowing respondent’s Motions, which
compliance with the procedural defects noted and ordered were aimed at the execution of the judgment in his favor.
corrected by the trial court. As the prevailing party, he should not be deprived of the
To begin with, the August 22, 2000 denial of the original fruits16of his rightful victory by any subterfuge of the losing
Motion for Issuance of a Notice of Garnishment was party or by minor procedural lapses of his lawyer.
grounded on (1) respondent’s inadvertent failure to attach
a notice of hearing under Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules
Second Issue:
of Court; (2) his failure to indicate the balance of the
Wife Not a Party
unsatisfied judgment; and (3) the rule that it was not the
court, but the branch sheriff implementing the Writ of9 Petitioners next challenge the appellate court’s ruling
Execution, that should issue a notice of garnishment. sustaining the denial by the trial court of Petitioner
Respondent aimed to correct those procedural lapses in his Rebecca Madriaga’s Motion and Manifestation, on the
Motion dated August 25, 2000. Unfortunately, it was ground that she was not a party to the case and could not
denied, because it was not his counsel of record who filed it, ask for the reliefs prayed for. As respondent was still
and the amount reflected as unpaid 10
did not correspond to married to her at the time of the money judgment,
the partial return of the sheriff. petitioners contended that (1) she had a share in the
The subsequent compliance of respondent with the judgment awarded to respondent; and, (2) having condoned
above procedural requirements notwithstanding, his her share in petitioners’ favor, the balance of the money
Motion for Issuance of the Notice of Garnishment was still judgment should be reduced by an amount corresponding
denied, because the life of the original Writ of Execution to that share. We are not convinced.
had already expired.
11
For that reason, he was advised to ask At the time Rebecca’s Motion and Manifestation was
for an alias writ, and he promptly did in a “Motion for filed before the trial court, the judgment in respondent’s
Reconsideration with 12
Prayer for the Issuance of an Alias favor had already become final and executory. It is a well-
Writ of Execution.” settled rule that once a final judgment or order becomes
The trial court then required him and the branch sheriff final and executory—more so when it has already been
to submit under oath a computation13
of how much of the executed—it may no longer be amended or corrected by the
judgment had been satisfied. On November 27, 2000, court, except for cleri-
respondent
_______________
_______________
14 Id., p. 102.
9 Rollo, p. 84. 15 Id., pp. 112-116.
10 Id., p. 88.
16 Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., supra;
11 Id., p. 98.
Times Transit Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
12 Id., pp. 99-100.
Commission, 363 Phil. 386, 392; 304 SCRA 11, 17, March 2, 1999; Nasser
13 Order dated November 15, 2000; Id., p. 101.
v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 871, 883; 245 SCRA 20, 29, June 5, 1995.
699
700
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 699

14
filed a Compliance, which the court later found to be not cal errors
17
or mistakes and only in a few exceptional
in accordance with its Order. His fourth (and last) 18
cases, none of which obtains in the present case. A final

judgment stands immutable; otherwise, there would be no judgment, petitioners could have tried 21to include
22
Rebecca
end to litigation. A judgment that has attained finality as a party to the suit, under Sections 4 and 9 of Rule 3.
constitutes the ultimate adjudication of the rights and But they did not.
obligations of the parties and becomes valid and binding
upon them and their successors in interest.
Third Issue:
Moreover, as the trial court correctly observed, Rebecca’s
No Proof That German Balanoba
post-judgment Motion and Manifestation was in the nature
Was a Laborer
of a motion for intervention. Therefore, it should have been
filed before judgment was rendered, as19 provided under As to the remaining assertion that Petitioner German
Section 2 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. As the case was Balanoba should have been considered a “laborer” whose
already ter- wages were exempt from execution, suffice it to state the
basic evidentiary rule that whoever alleges 23a fact must
_______________ prove it with the required quantum of proof. Litigations
cannot be
17 Mayon Estate Corp. v. Altura, 440 SCRA 377, October 18, 2004;
Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. Oriental Assurance Corporation,
_______________
439 Phil. 663, 671; 391 SCRA 67, 73-74, October 15, 2002; Jose Clavano,
Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 428 Phil. 208, 233; 378 trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion
SCRA 172, 190, February 27, 2002; Pio Barretto Realty Development and served on the original parties.”
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 553, 564; 360 SCRA 127, 138,
20 Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes, Inc., supra; Rabino
June 28, 2001.
18 Among the exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of final v. Cruz, 222 SCRA 493, 501, May 24, 1993.
judgments or orders is the existence of supervening events, which refer to

21 Section 4 of Rule 3 reads:
facts transpiring after the judgment has become final and executory; or to “SEC. 4. Spouses as parties.—Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except
new circumstances that develop after the judgment has acquired finality as provided by law.”
—including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during
the trial, as they were not yet in existence at the time. (See Natalia 22 Section 9 of Rule 3 provides as follows:
Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 1, 23; 391 SCRA 370, 381,
“SEC. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.—Whenever in any
November 12, 2002; and Jose Clavano, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader
Regulatory Board, supra, p. 228; p. 192). A final judgment may also be shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the
modified when its execution becomes impossible or unjust. (See Abalos v. court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of
Philex Mining Corporation, 441 Phil. 386, 393-394; 393 SCRA 134, 140, the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
November 27, 2002.) “The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause,
19 See Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes, Inc., 414 Phil. shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
389, 406; 362 SCRA 115, 131, July 31, 2001; Looyuko v. Court of Appeals, “The non[-]inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from
413 Phil. 445, 460-461; 361 SCRA 150, 165, July 12, 2001. Section 2 of proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without
Rule 19 provides as follows: prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.”
“SEC. 2. Time to intervene.—The motion to intervene may be filed at any time 23 Ocampo v. Ocampo, 427 SCRA 545, 546 & 555, April 14, 2004; Lagon
before rendition of judgment by the v. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc., 349 SCRA 363, 379,
701 702
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 701 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Balanoba vs. Madriaga Balanoba vs. Madriaga
minated upon the rendition of 20 the final judgment,

intervention was no longer possible. Significantly, prior to
properly resolved by suppositions, deductions or even should be admitted and granted, the motion is deemed
presumptions with no basis in evidence, for the truth must denied. (Yale Development Corporation vs. Caragao, 306
be determined
24
by the applicable rules of admissibility and SCRA 1 [1999])
proof. Where the DARAB has no jurisdiction to hear and
Apropos this contention,
25
the Court reiterates the rule in decide the controversy between the parties, necessarily, a
v. Court of Appeals that the exemption under Article
Gaa 26 motion for intervention loses the leg on which it can stand.
1708 of the Civil Code favors only laboring men or women (Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals,
whose work is manual. Belonging to this class are the 327 SCRA 293 [2000])
workers who usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for
immediate or present support. They, more than any other ——o0o——
27
persons, are the ones in need of the exemption which,
needless to say, does not encompass any and all workers.
With more reason should it be said that any claim for
exemption must be clearly established.
Because it was not proven that German Balanoba was a
mere laborer, no error may be ascribed to the CA for ruling
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
that his salary was not exempt from execution.
WHEREFORE, this Petition is DENIED and the
challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, challenged decision affirmed.
_______________
January 17, 2001. See also §1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence.
24 Lagon v. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc.; supra, p. 380.
25 140 SCRA 304, December 3, 1985. See D’ Armoured Security and
Investigation Agency, Inc. v. Orpia, G.R. No. 151325, June 27, 2005, 461
SCRA 312.
26 “Art. 1708. The laborer’s wages shall not be subject to execution or
attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and
medical attendance.”
27 Gaa v. Court of Appeals; supra, p. 317.
703
VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 703

Rimasug vs. Martin
Notes.—Where there is an even vote (2-2), with one

abstention, in a Division of the Supreme Court on the issue
of whether or not a second motion for reconsideration

Balanoba vs. Madriaga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balanoba vs. Madriaga

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Balanoba vs. Madriaga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 475 9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 475

impugnment of a judgment or final order by the filing of

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 689

Balanoba vs. Madriaga

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanoba vs. Madriaga The Case

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 691

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

695 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

only the losing or “aggrieved party” was prohibited from

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 699

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c3002c66253ab19c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16

judgments or orders is the existence of supervening events, which refer to

minated upon the rendition of 20 the final judgment,

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and

Petition denied, challenged decision affirmed.

VOL. 475, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 703

Notes.—Where there is an even vote (2-2), with one

You might also like