Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v Hon Emmanuel Carpio, Country Bankers

Insurance Corporation, Dabay Abad, Hatab Abad, Omar Abas, Hanapi Abdullah, Rojea
Ab Abdullah, Abdullah Abendin, Alex Abendin et a. represented by their Atty in Fact,
Manuel Te

Date: Feb 1 2017

Ponente: J. Mendoza

Facts:
 Dabay Abad, Hatab Abad, Omar Abas, Hanapi Abdullah, Rojea Ab Abdullah,
Abdullah Abedin, Alex Abedin, et al (Abad et al) represented by their Atty in fact
Manuel Te filed a complaint for delivery of certificates of title, damages, and atty
fees against DBP abd Guarantee Fund for small and medium enterprise (GFSME)
before the RTC
 Abad et al prayed for the issuance of writ of seizure, pending hearing of the case,
for delivery of their certificates of title they claimed to be unlawfully detained by
DBP and GFSME
o Abad et al submitted the said certificates of title to DBP for safe keeping due
to the loan agreement
o DBP then submitted the certificates to GMSF because of its call to guarantee
the said loan
 RTC issued the writ of seizure and this was accompanied by Plaintiff’s Bond for
Manual Delivery of personal property issued by Country Bankers Insurance Corp
(CBIC)
 DBP filed its Omnibus Motion to dismiss complaint and to quash writ of seizure on the
ground of improper venue
 Abad et al filed an opposition and supplemental opposition in which they
attached a delivery receipt showing that the court sheriff took possession of the
certificates from GFSME
 RTC granted DBP’s motion on the ground of improper venue
 DBP and GFSME filed their Joint motion to order Plaintiffs to return titles
 RTC granted the said motion
 Abad et al filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the court praying for the
nullification and reversal of said decision
 RTC issued writ of execution to the sheriff but failed to do so
 DBP now files a motion/application to call on plaintiff’s surety bond for the
damages it incurred for its non-delivery
 RTC denied the motion
o The resolution on the said motion was no longer part of its residual power
 The order of the return was due to the consequence of the dismissal
based on improper venue and not on the trial of the case
 DBP filed MR but Denied
 DBP filed certiorari before CA
 CA ruling
o Dismissed as it did not file for the MR on the RTC decision about the improper
venue case = final and executor
o Rule 57 sec 20 provided that the claim for damages against the bond must
be filed before trial or before appeal was perfected or before the judgement
became executor
 DBP filed MR but denied
Issue: WON dismissal on the ground of improper venue prejudicial to file anew (NO)

Held:
 Residual Jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the
protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by
indigent litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with sec 2
Rule 39 and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal provided these are done prior to
the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal or in case of a petition
for review under Rule 42 before the CA
o Available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost
jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal
o This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or
upon the approval of the records on appeal but prior to the transmittal of the
original records or the records on appeal
 As applied
o It is clear that before trial court can have residual jurisdiction, trial on the
merits must first be conducted ; the court rendered judgement; and the
aggrieved party appealed therefrom
o In this case, no trial on the merits but dismissed due to improper venue and
respondents could not have appealed the order of dismissal as the same was
withouth prejudice
 Rule 41 sec 1(h) no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an
action without prejudice
 Indeed there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of as no appeal was
filed
o Strongworld Construction v Hon Perello
 Dismissal w prejudice – bars refilling of the complaint and subject to
right of appeal
 Dismissal w/o prejudice can refile
 Rule 16 sec 1 list, are not prejudicial except f,h,i
o Hence, it is erroneous to conclude that RTC may rue on DBP’s application for
damages pursuant to its residual powers
 Other issues
o Equity
 P asking for relaxation of rules on Rule 57 sec 20 as application for
damages was after the order of dismissal had become final and
executor
 However, equity cannot apply if there’s an express mandate
 Only in absence of mandate can equity apply
o Remedies
 DBP can still enforce guarantee agreement with GFSME
 File action for damages under Art 19 of NCC for unlawfully taking said
certificates
 DBO can file a personal action for collection of sum of money against
respondents or instituting a real action to foreclose on the mortgage
security
 Alternative remedy^
 Dispositive: Denied