3rd resolution (motion for recon): issued TRO w/ increased
INVESTMENTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, TOBACCO bond of P650,000. Investments argued that the hearing INDUSTRIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., and THE SHERIFF OF THE on the merits of the civil case is about to be terminated. CITY OF MANILA, respondents. 3. The CA issued a resolution declaring, without prejudice to the early Topic: Execution of Judgments; Final Judgment versus final and executory conclusion of the case in the trial court, the proceedings before it judgment terminated because it had stopped the sale of the machines until final judgment is rendered in the civil case. The Clerk of Court caused entry Emergency Recit: Investments filed a Civil Case for annulment of a chattel of judgment in the CA case but entered the dispositive portion of the mortgage against TIP. A TRO was issued, but was subsequently lifted. 2nd resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari and made no Investments questioned such order with a certiorari. CA issued the TRO, but reference to the other resolutions. then declared the proceedings to be terminated as it had stopped the auction 4. Trial in the civil case continued and resulted in a judgment dismissing sale until the final judgment in the civil case. Trial in the civil case ensued, the Investments complaint for lack of merit. Investments appealed the and Investments civil case was dismissed. Investments appealed, and TOP decision to the CA. TIP filed with the trial court a motion for execution filed a motion for execution pending appeal, and a motion to lift injunction. pending appeal and with the CA a motion to lift the writ of preliminary Investments opposed the motions, arguing that the injunction will subists until injunction. final judgment in the civil case, and since the decision is not yet final and 5. Investments opposed both motions contending that the injunction executory, the injunction was still in force. The issue is whether or not the issued by the CA against the holding of the auction sale was meant to life of an injunction subsists until final judgment. The Supreme Court held subsist until final judgment in the civil case and since the decision that the injunction has already expired as there was already a final judgment, rendered in said case was not yet final and executory, the injunction given in its ordinary meaning. was still in force. CA however, relied on the erroneous judgment entered by the Clerk of Court and dismissed the motion whereby TIP Doctrine: A final judgment in the sense becomes final upon expiration of caused the mortgaged chattels to be sold by the Sheriff at a public the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected or, an auction. appeal therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the appellate tribunal in 6. Investments filed with the CA a motion for contempt and for annulment turn becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of of the sale. The CA issued a TRO stopping TIP from taking possession origin. The final judgment is then correctly categorized as a final and of the machines and commanding it to return the machines to executory judgment in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides, Investments. Subsequently, another resolution was issued by the CA execution shall issue as a matter of right. It bears stressing that only a final denying Investments plea for nullification of the sale and an judgment or order, i.e., a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action adjudication of TIPs liability. In the same resolution, the CA sustained of proceeding can become final and executory. TIPs position that the TRO enjoining the sale had lapsed upon the rendition of the final judgment irrespective of the appeal taken. Facts: 7. The Court also declared valid the auction sale and dissolved the 1. Investments filed an action for the annulment of a chattel mortgage restraining order in the previous CA resolution (the 1st CA case) stating executed by Investments in TIPs favor covering 5 cigarette-making that the TRO was intended as a temporary measure pending the machines, which were about to be sold on the foreclosure of the latter. determination of the status of the civil case. Therefore, the CA 2. Initially, a TRO was issued by the court but was subsequently lifted dismissed the contempt charges and found TIPs counterbond in lieu after a reconsideration of the order. Investments brought the of returning the machines substantial compliance of the 1 st resolution questioned order to the CA by way of certiorari and prohibition. commanding them to return the machines to Investments. a. 1st resolution: issuance of writ of preliminary injunction 8. Investments theorizes that the judgment rendered by the Trial Court enjoining the auction sale by filing of P75,000 bond. in said Civil Case No. 116617 on December 19, 1980 was not a "final b. 2nd resolution: lifted the injuction. judgment" because it was an appealable judgment and had, in fact, been appealed seasonably. TIP, for its part, asserts that that judgment was in truth a "final judgment" as the term is used in procedural law, even if appealable and hence, upon its rendition, the than that accorded to it by law and established usage. Their preliminary injunction of the Appellate Court expired, its life having agreement must therefore be construed to mean exactly what it precisely been fixed to endure until such judgment shall have been says, that upon rendition by the Trial Court. on December 9, 1981 of rendered. its judgment on the merits, i.e., its " final judgment," the life and effectivity of the preliminary injunction came to an end, regardless of Issue: W/N the effective life of the preliminary injunction was to subsist only the appealability of, or the actual taking of an appeal from said until final judgment YES! judgment. The petitioner's theory of the case, founded on its concept of a "final judgment" is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Held: 1. The concept of "final" judgment, as distinguished from one which has WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner. "become final" (or "executory" as of right [final and executory]), is definite and settled. A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final and executory." 2. Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is "interlocutory. Unlike a "final" judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an "interlocutory" order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. 3. The rule is founded on considerations of orderly procedure, to forestall useless appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they are promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be contested in a single appeal. 4. Now, a "final judgment" in the sense just described becomes final "upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected" or, an appeal therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of origin. The "final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides, "execution shall issue as a matter of right." It bears stressing that only a final judgment or order can become final and executory. 5. There is no showing that the parties and their counsel intended to give the term "final judgment" a special signification, a meaning other