Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c29f1?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c29f1?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c29f1}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 48306, Nov 07, 1941 ]

PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA +

DECISION

73 Phil. 399

[ G.R. No. 48306, November 07, 1941 ]

PEDRO L. GALANG, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE P. M. ENDENCIA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AND PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

On December 26,  1940, respondent Judge Pastor M. En- dencia  rendered  judgment in  civil  case No. 55934 of the Court of First Instance  of Manila  in  favor of  the plaintiff therein, the  Philippine  Engineering Corporation,  and against defendant, Pedro L. Galang.  Defendant interposed an  appeal and  five  days  after the  perfection thereof the Philippine Engineering Corporation filed with the respondent  court a  petition  for a writ of attachment, alleging among others, "that the defendant (petitioner here)  has disposed of  his  property or  is about to do so with intent  to defraud his creditors."  The petition was granted,  and the sheriff of Manila levied on  five boilers and six parcels of land belonging to the defendant and garnished his deposits with the Philippine Trust Comany in the sum of F491.97. Defendant filed a motion for the discharge of the writ alleging that the disposal of his properties was in the regular and legitimate course of his business and was, therefore, not intended to be in fraud of his creditors.  The court refused to discharge the writ  unless the defendant file a counterbond  in the amount of the judgment.   The defendant, instead of filing the counterbond,  applies now to this court for a writ of certiorari to declare respondent Judge to have acted without jurisdiction in the issuance of the  writ of attachment.

It is contended that the respondent court  had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of attachment after an appeal has been duly perfected from its final judgment.  Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

"Upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the approval of the appeal bond and the  record on appeal,  the appeal is deemed perfected and  the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of  the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter  litigated  by  the appeal, and  to approve compromises offered by the  parties prior to the transmittal of the record on appeal to the  appellate court.

The levy  in attachment of the properties of the defend- ant upon the allegation that he is about to dispose of the same to defraud his creditors is one which is intended for the protection and preservation of the rights of the plaintiff and which in no way involves any matter litigated by the defendant's  appeal.  And as the respondent court had jurisdiction to issue the writ of attachment,  its errors, if any, committed in the appreciation of the probative value of the facts stated  in the  petition  for the  writ do not affect its jurisdiction  but merely  the exercise of such jurisdiction. We need not belabor  here  the rule that  what  makes up jurisdiction is the authority to act in a particular case and not the correctness of the action taken thereon.  Without such  authority, as determined by law,  the court cannot act, or if  it does, its actuations are null and void; but where the authority exists, all orders and decisions of the court rendered in the  exercise  thereof and within its limits are valid even  if they were erroneous.  In such cases, appeal, not certiorari,  is the proper remedy.

Petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.


Abad Santos,  Diaz, Horrilleno,  and Ozaeta,  JJ., concur.

tags