Anda di halaman 1dari 1

DE GUZMAN VS NLRC, 253 SCRA 46

FACTS: Arturo de Guzman was the manager of the Manila Office of Affiliated Machineries Agency, Ltd.
(AMAL). AMAL ceased its operations and its employees filed their monetary claims against it in the Labor
Arbiter. While the case was pending, de Guzman was impleaded for allegedly selling part of AMALs assets
and applying the proceeds of the same, as well as the remaining assets, to satisfy his own claims against the
company. The court awarded the claims of the employees.
DE GUZMAN: His application of AMALs assets to satisfy his own claims against the company is nothing more
than a simple legal compensation or set-off deserves scant consideration as it was done without deference to
the legitimate claims of respondent employees and other creditors of AMAL, in contravention of the provisions
on concurrence and preference of credits under the Civil Code.
RULING: Although the question of damages arising from petitioners bad faith has not directly sprung from the
illegal dismissal, it is clearly intertwined therewith. Accordingly, petitioners bad faith having been sufficiently
established, the award of damages against him and the order for him to return the assets of AMAL which he
appropriated, or their value, are in order.

MANALO VS CA, 366 SCRA 752

FACTS: Therese Villanueva Vargas obtained a loan from PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank which she was
unable to pay. The bank instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The title was eventually consolidated
in their name. They filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession which Vargas opposed. During the
pendency of the hearing, Vargas sold the mortgaged properties to Armando Angsico and leased them to
Domingo Manalo. The issuance of the Writ was then granted.

MANALO: He posits that as a lessee and assignee in possession of the foreclosed real estate, he
automatically acquires interest over the subject matter of the litigation. This interest is coupled with the fact
that he introduced improvements thereon, consisting of a one-storey building which houses a karaoke-music
restaurant, allegedly to the tune of fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00). Enforcing the writ, he adds, without
hearing his side would be an injustice to him.

RULING: Allowing petitioner to intervene, furthermore, will serve no other purpose but to unduly delay the
execution of the writ, to the prejudice of the respondent. This cannot be countenanced considering that after
the consolidation of title in the buyers name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession
becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial
function. As such, the court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. If only to stress the writs
ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have
held that issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the
foreclosure itself.
Being herself bereft of valid title and rights, Vargas cannot legitimately convey any to some other
person. She could not have lawfully sold the land to Angsico nor leased it to petitioner for her own account. It
is axiomatic that one cannot transmit what one does not have. It ought to follow that petitioner could not have
acquired any right or interest from Vargas.