You are on page 1of 2

Author: Fred Atienza

Economic v Uy
Petitioner: ECONOMIC INSURANCE CO., INC.,
Respondent: UY REALTY COMPANY, HONORABLE GAUDENCIO
CLORIBEL, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch VI, and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA
Ponencia: FERNANDO, J.
DOCTRINE: That procedural rules are intended as an aid to justice, not
as a means for its frustration.
FACTS:
1. A complaint for Ejectment was filed by Uy Realty against
Economic Insurance. Economic Insurance then filed an answer
with counterclaims, seeking dismissal of such a suit as well as a
counterclaim for reimbursement in the amount of P15,000.00 for
alleged improvements made on the leased premises and for
damages in the amount of P5,000.00 for alleged bad faith on the part
of the lessor.
2. The decision of the City Court of Manila ordered the defendant
and those claiming under him to vacate the premises as well as
to pay the sum of P4,100.00 representing rents in arrears plus
the sum of P1,500.00 a month beginning September, 1966 for the
use and occupation of such premises.
3. Upon an appeal being taken, which fell to the sala of respondent
Judge, a supersedes bond was executed by such defendant as
well as by the petitioner, the Economic Insurance Co., Inc.
4. During the appeal, a motion for dismissal of the case and for
payment of the supersedeas bond was filed by the plaintiff,
respondent Uy Realty Co. because:
a. Possession of the property had been restored to Uy Realty
b. Withdraw the supersedeas bond in lieu of rental payments
by Economic Insurance to Uy Realty.
5. Judge Cloribel issued an order dismissing the case, but overlooked
the prayer for the payment of the supersedeas bond.
6. Within the thirty-day period, respondent sought for an amendment of
the above order to include execution on the bond filed to cover the
past rentals due.
7. Judge Cloribel granted the prayer for a writ of execution. It was
issued at a time when the matter was still subject to cognizance by
respondent Judge.
ISSUES: Whether or not the judge erred in granting the inclusion of the
writ of execution

PROVISION:
In computing net income, there shall be allowed as deductions: (a)
Expenses: All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred
during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business
RULING + RATIO: No
1. Unfortunately, through haste or inadvertence, respondent Judge
ignored that portion of the prayer for execution and merely ordered
that the appealed case be dismissed. Within the period, however,
before such order attained the stage of finality, a modification
thereof was secured as a result of a manifestation and a motion of
respondent Uy Realty Co. to execute on the bond filed by petitioner.
Under the circumstances, what respondent Judge did was
clearly within his authority, and the challenged order can stand
the test of the most exacting scrutiny. Hence, this petition
should fail.
2. One last observation. It is understandable for a party in the
situation of petitioner to make full use of every conceivable
legal defense the law allows it. In the appraisal, however, of
such attempts to evade liability to which a party like petitioner
should respond, it must ever be kept in mind that procedural
rules are intended as an aid to justice, not as a means for its
frustration. Even if the petition were impressed with a greater
degree of plausibility, it would be, considering all the circumstances,
to crown with success an unworthy scheme to evade a just obligation
by perverting the ends procedural requisites are intended to
accomplish. Not once but several times, from Alonso v. Villamor, we
have stressed that we are not to lend the imprimatur of our approval
to any such effort, the result of which would be to render illusory
substantive rights. We do so again. Technicalities, in the
appropriate Language of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to
the realities of the situation.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by us
by virtue of our resolution of September 25, 1967 is set aside, and this
petition for prohibition is denied. With costs against petitioner Economic
Insurance Co., Inc.

Author: Fred Atienza

You might also like