xxx
xxx
SO
We
first
consider
the
first
cause
of
action.
J.:
Costs
1.
against
ORDERED.
defendant
[Rollo,
COMTRUST.
pp.
47-48.]
Makati----Cable
Address:
Philippines----"COMTRUST"
COMMERCIAL
of
Quezon
BANK
AND
the
City
December
MR.
&/OR
TRUST
8,
RIZALDY
T.
MRS.
SHIRLEY
COMPANY
Philippines
Branch
1975
E.
ZSHORNACK
ZSHORNACK
Sir/Madam:
We acknowledged (sic) having received from you today
the sum of US DOLLARS: THREE THOUSAND ONLY
(US$3,000.00)
for
safekeeping.
Received
VIRGILIO
by:(Sgd.)
V.
GARCIA
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiffappellee,
vs.
GREGORIO
DE
LA
PENA,
administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de
la Pena, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 6913 | 1913-11-21
DECISION
MORELAND, J.:
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the
plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal
rate from the beginning of the action.
It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the
trustee of a charitable bequest made for the
construction of a leper hospital and that Father Agustin
de la Pea was the duly authorized representative of
the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the
administrator of the estate of Father De la Pea.
In the year 1898 the books of Father de la Pea, as
trustee, shoed that he had on hand as such trustee the
sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable
purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in
his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and
Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during
the war of the revolution, Father dela Pea was
arrested by the military authorities as a political
prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on
said bank in favor of the United States Army officer
under whose charge he then was so for the sum thus
deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father de la Pea
and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the
result of the claim of the military authorities that he
was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited
had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes.
The money was taken from the bank by the military
authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and
turned over to the Government.
While there is considerable dispute in the case over the
question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was
included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid,
nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads
us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of
the funds deposited and which were removed and
confiscated by the military authorities of the United
States.
Branch of the law know in England and America as the
law of the trusts had no exact counterpart in the
Roman law and is more has none under the Spanish
law, In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father dela Pea's
liability is determined by those portions of the Civil
Code which relate to obligations (Book 4, Title 1.)
Although the Civil Code states that a "person obliged to
give something is also bound to preserve it with the
diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art.
1094), it also provides, following the principle of the
DAVIDE,
I
JR.,
I
J
N
p:
is
the
crux
of
the
present
controversy.
costs
against
plaintiff."
The
petition
is
partly
meritorious.
xxx
xxx
xxx
pronouncement
as
to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANGEL JAVELLANA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE
LIM, ET. AL., defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. 4015 | 1908-08-24
D
TORRES,
N
J.:
1768
also
provides
that
----
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
N
J.:
preliminary
docketed
The
essential
antecedents
are
as
follows:
attachment
as
Civil
against
Case
petitioners,[7]
No.
53044.
P1,930,000.00
as
actual
damages;
2)
P2,549,000.00
as
actual
damages;
ORDERED."
trial
court
ratiocinated
as
follows:
Court
affirms
the
above
findings.
"I
agree.
equipment
or
claim
for
damages?
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
The primary question of interest before this Court is the
only legal issue in the case: It is whether a hotel may
evade liability for the loss of items left with it for
safekeeping by its guests, by having these guests
execute written waivers holding the establishment or
its employees free from blame for such loss in light of
Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers.
Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of the
Decision[1] dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the Decision[2] dated 16
December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation,
Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and
Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for
damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin
(McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and
Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of
Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and
operated by YHT Realty Corporation.
The factual backdrop of the case follow.
Private
respondent
McLoughlin,
an
Australian
businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton
Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984
when he met Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin by
showing him around, introducing him to important
people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished
street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the
children and in distributing the same to charitable
institutions for poor children.
Tan convinced
McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to
Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were
employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while
Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the
safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan took care of
P76,341.785
P3,900.97 representing
7)
One-half
of
P356,400.00
or
P178,000.00
representing expenses for food and maintenance;
8) P50,000.00 for moral damages;
9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
P168,103.52
Copacabana
(4)
One-half
of
P152,683.57
or
representing payment to Echelon Tower;
P76,341.785
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution
of
this
Court
dated
FEB
21
2005.
G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino
Merchants
Insurance
Company,
Inc.)
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the
decision[1] dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier
decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City,
Branch 148, in its Civil Case No. 98-838, an action for
damages thereat filed by respondent Filipino Merchants
Insurance, Company, Inc., against the herein petitioner,
Triple-V
Food
Services,
Inc.
On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the
afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis)
dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West
Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi
Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 with plate number
UBU 955, assigned to her by her employer Crispa
Textile Inc. (Crispa). On said date, De Asis availed of
the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted
her car key to petitioner's valet counter. A
corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for
the car. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet
attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated
parking area. Few minutes later, Madridano noticed
that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no
longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep
the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never
recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its
insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance
Company, Inc. (FMICI). Having indemnified Crispa in
the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the subject
vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed with
the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against
petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc., thereat docketed
as Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch
148.
agree
petitioner's
with
the
present
two
(2)
recourse.
courts
below.
argument
that
there
was
no
valid
JR.,
J.:
FACTS
quedans.
payment;
SO
and
ORDERED.
The
PNB
submits
that:
I
PNB'S RIGHT TO A WRIT OF EXECUTION IS SUPPORTED
BY TWO FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISIONS: THE
DECEMBER 13, 1991 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN
CA-G.R. SP. NO. 25938; AND, THE NOVEMBER 9, 1992
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R NO. 107243.
RESPONDENT RTC'S MINISTERIAL, AND MANDATORY
DUTY IS TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF EXECUTION TO
IMPLEMENT THE DECRETAL PORTION OF SAID SUPREME
COURT
DECISION
II
RESPONDENT RTC IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' OMNIBUS MOTION. THE
CLAIMS SET FORTH IN SAID MOTION: (1) WERE
ALREADY REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS
MARCH 9, 1994 RESOLUTION DENYING PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS' "MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF
DECISION" IN G.R NO. 107243, AND (2) ARE BARRED
FOREVER BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' FAILURE TO
INTERPOSE THEM IN THEIR ANSWER AND FAILURE TO
APPEAL FROM THE JUNE 18, 1992 RTC DECISION IN
CIVIL
CASE
NO.
90-52023
III
RESPONDENT RTC'S ONLY JURISDICTION IS TO ISSUE
THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION. THUS, PNB IS ENTITLED TO: (1) A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO ANNUL THE RTC RESOLUTION DATED
DECEMBER 20, 1994 AND THE ORDER DATED
FEBRUARY 7, 1995 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY
THE RTC THEREAFTER; (2) A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO
PREVENT
RESPONDENT
RTC
FROM
FURTHER
PROCEEDING WITH CIVIL CASE NO. 90-53023 AND
COMMITTING OTHER ACTS VIOLATIVE OF THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION IN G.R. NO. 107243, AND (3) A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RESPONDENT RTC TO
ISSUE THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
IN
FAVOR
OF
PNB
The issues presented before us in this petition revolve
around the legality of the questioned orders of
respondent judge, issued as they were after we had
denied with finality private respondents' contention
that the PNB could not compel them to deliver the
stocks of sugar in their warehouse covered by the
endorsed quedans or pay the value of the said stocks
of
sugar.
Petitioner's submission is on a technicality, that is, that
private respondents have lost their right to recover
warehouseman's lien on the sugar stocks covered by
the five (5) Warehouse Receipts for the reason that
they failed to set up said claim in their Answer before
the trial court and that private respondents did not
appeal from the decision in this regard, dated June 18,
1992. Petitioner asseverates that the denial by this
Court on March 9, 1994 of the motion seeking
clarification of our decision, dated September 1, 1993,
has foreclosed private respondents' right to enforce
their warehouseman's lien for storage fees and
preservation expenses under the Warehouse Receipts
Act.
xxx
xxx
against
the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.