2 Civpro Digest

ISSUE: WON RTC Decision is valid
RULING:
The Constitution requires that" [N]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." 14 The 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that" [T]he judgment must be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly
and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the
judgment is based." 15
Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, it cannot merely refer to the
findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court. The court must make a full findings of
fact and conclusion of law of its own. 16
Consequently, the decision of the regional trial court is a nullity. Very recently, speaking of a similarly
worded decision of a regional trial court, we said: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
" [I]t is starkly hallow, otiosely written, vacuous in its content and trite in its form. It achieved
nothing and attempted at nothing, not even at a simple summation of facts which could easily be
done. Its inadequacy speaks for itself." 17
Judges similarly disposed to pay lip service to their work must rethink their place in the judiciary or
seriously take refresher courses on decision writing. We warn them of stiff sanctions for such
lackadaisical performance.
Consequently, the case may be remanded to the lower court for compliance with the constitutional
requirement of contents of a decision. However, considering that this case has been pending for
sometime, the ends of justice will be fully served if we review the evidence and decide the case.
CHING VS CA
FACTS: On August 6, 1981, respondent Family Savings Bank (Bank) filed a complaint3 with the Court of First Instance (CFI)
of Manila, for the collection of a sum of money against its debtor Cheng Ban Yek & Co., Inc. and petitioner Alfredo Ching,
who acted as a surety for Cheng Ban Yek & Co., Inc.4 A day after the complaint was filed, the Bank was able to obtain a
writ of preliminary attachment against the defendants.5 Armed with a writ of preliminary attachment, the deputy sheriff of
the CFI of Manila, herein respondent Ferdinand J. Guerrero, proceeded to levy upon a conjugal property6 belonging to
petitioners, spouses Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching.7
On July 26, 1982, petitioners filed a petition8 with the CFI of Rizal,9 seeking to declare illegal the levy on attachment upon
their conjugal property.10 Petitioners claimed that the branch sheriff had no authority to levy upon a property belonging to
the conjugal partnership. The trial court, however, dismissed the case on August 8, 1983 for lack of jurisdiction because
the subject property was already under custodia legis of the CFI of Manila.11
Meanwhile, summary judgment was rendered in the collection case in favor of the Bank on August 12, 1982.12 The
defendants therein, including petitioner Alfredo Ching, appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals.13 While
the case was on appeal,14 the trial court granted the Bank’s motion for execution pending appeal. 15 As a consequence, the
attached conjugal property was levied upon and sold through public auction by the deputy sheriff to the Bank on October
10, 1983.16
On September 5, 1984, in an effort to prevent the deputy sheriff from consolidating the sale, petitioners filed a second
annulment case17 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.18 Petitioners sought to declare void the levy and sale on
execution of their conjugal property by reiterating the same argument raised in the first annulment case, i.e., that the
branch sheriff had no authority to levy upon a property belonging to the conjugal partnership.19
On November 15, 1985, while the second annulment case was pending, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed in
the collection case and affirmed in toto the summary judgment rendered by the CFI of Manila.20 The matter was elevated
to us on a petition for review,21 but was eventually dismissed for having been filed out of time and for lack of merit.22 Hence,
the decision in the collection case became final.
On November 13, 1990, the RTC of Makati rendered judgment in the second annulment case in favor of petitioners and
declared null and void the levy and sale on execution upon the conjugal property.23 Respondents elevated the decision to
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 31795. On October 27, 1994, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed decision,
reversing and setting aside the decision of the RTC of Makati.24 The Court of Appeals declared that the Makati annulment
case is barred by res judicata because of the prior Rizal annulment case and Manila collection case.1awphi1.nét Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE: WON RTC Makati has jurisdiction over the second annulment case
RULING:
The Makati annulment case should have been dismissed from the start for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC of Makati does not
have the authority to nullify the levy and sale on execution that was ordered by the CFI of Manila, a co-equal court. The
determination of whether or not the levy and sale of a property in execution of a judgment was valid, properly falls within
the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the judgment and issued the writ of execution.26
No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate
jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are
not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would
obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice.
There is no dispute that the subject conjugal property was under custodia legis of the CFI of Manila. It was initially attached
under a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the CFI of Manila. Said property was later on levied upon and sold under
a writ of execution issued by the same court. Since the attachment, levy and sale have been carried out upon orders of the
CFI of Manila, any and all questions concerning the validity and regularity thereof necessarily had to be addressed to the
CFI of Manila.

2 Civpro Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Civpro Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

2 Civpro Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: WON RTC Decision is valid

You might also like