DELTA MOTORS CORP.

VS CA
FACTS
- Private Respondent State Investment House, INc. filed action against DELTA for a
sum of money at the RTC of Manila, Branch VI. DELTA was required to pay P20M
to the private respondent.
- The above decision could not be served by DELTA due to its dissolution. It had been
taken over by Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the meantime.
- Dec. 1986: SIHI moved forservice of the decision by way of publication. It was
published in the Thunderer, a weekly Manila newspaper. Afterwards, SIHI moved for
the execution, which the RTC granted on March 1987. Pursuant to the writ of
execution, properties of DELTA in Iloilo and Bacolod City were levied upon and sold.
- DELTA commenced a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, alleging that a)
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over DELTA since there was no valid/proper
service of summons rendering the decision void, and b) the decision never became
final and executory
- The CA ruled that against DELTA on the first ground, but ruled that the decision
never became executory because records show that the assailed judgment had
never been properly served against on PNB (which assumed DELTAs operation
upon its dissolution). The CA also stated that the publication was not a cure for such
a fatal defect.
- Therefore, the CA decreed that since the decision had not yet attained finality
pending a service of a copy on DELTA, who may appeal within the reglementory
period.
- DELTA filed an MR, insisting there could be no valid service of summons since the
RTC decision was not in accordance with the Rules and hence void. Dismissed by
CA
- DELTA filed a ppetition with the SC for review on certiorari. Denied.
- DELTA filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, indicating that it was appealing from
the earlier decision and prayed that records be elevated to the CA
- SIHI filed a motion to dismiss DELTAs appeal on the grounds that it was filed out of
time (beyond 15 days period after obtaining the copy of the decision). DELTAs
appeal was dismissed.
- DELTA filed an Omnibus motion with the CA to declare all acts and proceedings
relating to the earlier decision as void. The CA issued a reolustion on Jan. 5 1995
- SIHI filed a motion for clarification, asking for a deletion of a portion of the resolutio
for it being mere obiter dictum (While it is true that as a necessary consequence the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 22, 1991 ruling that the decision in
Civil Case No. 84-23019 "has not attained finality pending service of a copy thereof
on petitioner Delta, which may appeal therefrom within the reglementary period", all
proceedings and/or orders arising from the trial court's decision in Civil Case No. 8423019 are null and void x x x .) SIHI claimed that the statement was not necessary
for the case before it (the denial of the Omnibus motion and therefore could not be
held binding for establishing a precedent).
- CA decreed to amend its resolution and delete the assailed paragraph
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the CA erred in denying the petitioners Omnibus motion?
2. Whether or not the assailed paragraph in the CAs resolution was obiter
dictum?
RULING:
- Petition DISMISSED, Resolutions of CA AFFIRMED

1. No, the CA was correct is denying the Omnibus motion

a.) Sec. 7 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court on the Procedure in the CA:
Questions that may be decided No error which does not affect the jursidiction
over the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the asdsignment of
errors properly argued in the brief, save as the court, at its option, may notice
plain errors not specified, and also clerical errors.
b.) The CA could only consider errors raised by the petitioner, which were only
limited to the RTCs orders and not on the CAs previous decisions. Even so, to
allow DELTAs Omnibus motion which it filed more than eight months after the
promulgation of the decision and long after its finality would result in the
abandonment of sound judicial process.
2. Yes, the assailed paragraph is considered obiter dictum.
a.) Obiter dictum opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law
which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it; by the way. It is not
binding as precedent (Cannot be basis for stare decisis)
b.) The phrase was not raised by the petitioner expressly in its petition assailing
the dismisssal of its notice of appeal. Hence, it could not be considered a
prerequisite in disposing of the issues