GR 152537; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152537 ; February 16, 2004
ASIA TRADERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
In an ejectment case, Eduardo Cua appealed an adverse MTC decision to the RTC and posted a supersedeas bond issued by Asia Traders Insurance Corporation. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision. Upon Cua’s failure to comply with an order to release the bond, the RTC granted Cabever Realty Corporation’s motion and issued a writ of execution against Asia Traders. Asia Traders moved for reconsideration, claiming the bond was fake and spurious, and that it never issued such an instrument. The RTC denied the motion and proceeded with the levy and sale of Asia Traders’ property.
Asia Traders filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, impleading only the RTC judge and the sheriff. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on formal grounds for failure to implead the adverse party, Cabever, and on substantive grounds for unsubstantiated allegations. Asia Traders’ motion for reconsideration was denied. In its petition to the Supreme Court, Asia Traders initially impleaded only the Court of Appeals but later filed an amended petition to include Cabever as respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petition for review due to formal defects, and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution against the bond.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court, adopting a liberal policy to decide cases on their merits, granted the motion to admit the amended petition despite the initial failure to implead the indispensable adverse party, Cabever. The Court admonished petitioner for its lack of circumspection but noted Cabever suffered no prejudice as it was an original party and was furnished all pleadings.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The burden of proving the bond was spurious rested on Asia Traders, and the evidence it presented was deemed insufficient by the trial court. Asia Traders submitted its motion for reconsideration on the pleadings without requesting an evidentiary hearing, thereby agreeing to have the matter resolved on that basis. Its subsequent plea to reopen the case for the presentation of additional evidence was an impermissible afterthought and a piecemeal presentation of evidence not in accord with orderly justice. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal was therefore affirmed.