Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation (EGMPC) and North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventists (NPUM) entered into a Land Development Agreement wherein EGMPC was to develop a parcel of land owned by NPUM into a memorial park. EGMPC was to receive 40% of the net gross collection from the project. The agreement also stipulated that EGMPC would assist in discounting NPUM's projected receivables and that an initial payment and subsequent payments made by NPUM would be deducted from EGMPC's share. The underlying dispute arose from conflicting claims over the ownership of the land, with Maysilo Estate and the heirs of Vicente Singson Encarnacion surfacing as claimants. This led to EGMPC filing an interpleader action and the Singson heirs filing a quieting of title action. 2. Procedural History: The case is a derivative of G.R. No. 73794, which was previously remanded by the Supreme Court to the lower court for further proceedings and required EGMPC to deposit disputed amounts. After the trial court rendered decisions in the interpleader and quieting of title cases, these were appealed and consolidated before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of intervenors' claims and declared NPUM's titles valid, but reversed the trial court's decision in favor of the Singson heirs. Subsequent petitions for review by the Singson heirs, Maysilo Estate, and EGMPC were denied by the Supreme Court. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 73794, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a proper determination of the parties' accrued rights and liabilities, given that the ownership issue had been settled. The Court of Appeals then proceeded with the accounting, requiring EGMPC to produce specific documents. Despite repeated requests and subpoenas, EGMPC failed to submit the required documentation, leading the Court of Appeals to declare that EGMPC had waived its right to present records and proceeded with the accounting based on NPUM's submitted documents. The Court of Appeals approved the accountant's report, ordering EGMPC to pay substantial amounts, which was later affirmed upon reconsideration. 3. The Petition: EGMPC filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 124554, seeking to review the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated January 15, 1996, and April 12, 1996. EGMPC argued that its motion for extension to file the petition was timely filed. The Supreme Court treated the petition as filed under Rule 45, finding the motion for extension to be timely. EGMPC also contended that the Court of Appeals improperly delegated judicial functions and deprived it of due process, and that it should not be liable for interest. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the appointment of an accountant was permissible, that EGMPC was afforded due process, and that its failure to remit payments and consign the amounts due made it liable for interest. The Court also addressed EGMPC's claims of forum shopping and violation of constitutional provisions regarding changes in judicial doctrines, finding them without merit. Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' resolutions and lifting the temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether EGMPC timely filed its petition for review from the Court of Appeals' January 15, 1996 and April 12, 1996 Resolutions. Whether EGMPC's petition must be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. Whether EGMPC committed perjury in its certification against forum shopping. Whether the Third Division's Resolution ordering remand to the Court of Appeals for accounting changed or modified the Second Division's earlier Decision remanding the case to the trial court, in violation of constitutional provisions. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in appointing an accountant to make computations, thereby allegedly delegating a judicial function. Whether EGMPC was deprived of due process by not being given a reasonable opportunity to meet NPUM's claims and cross-examine NPUM's accountant. Whether the documents submitted by NPUM were genuine and properly identified. Whether EGMPC is liable for interest on the amounts due under the Land Development Agreement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 15, 1996, and April 12, 1996, were affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on January 15, 1997, was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court found that EGMPC's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review was timely filed on April 29, 1996, eleven days from its receipt of the appellate court's denial of its motion for reconsideration. This period falls within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari, which is fifteen days from notice of judgment or denial of a motion for reconsideration. The Court clarified that a motion for extension of time to file such a petition may be filed within the reglementary period. The Court also noted that the Court of Appeals' May 31, 1996 Report, which declared the January 15, 1996 Resolution final, erroneously applied the rule applicable to appeals filed with the Court of Appeals from a regional trial court's judgment, not appeals to the Supreme Court. On forum shopping: The Court disagreed with NPUM's contention that EGMPC's petition constituted forum shopping. The Court distinguished the reliefs sought in EGMPC's petition (setting aside the CA's January 15 and April 12, 1996 Resolutions) from those sought in its Opposition in G.R. No. 73794 (nullification of the CA's May 31, 1996 Report and allowance of the instant case). The Court viewed the Opposition as a complement to the petition, not an attempt to provoke the resolution of the same issue in multiple fora. Regarding the motions for restraining orders filed in both cases, the Court considered the exigency arising from the trial court's action on NPUM's motion for execution, which could render EGMPC's remedy in the instant case moot. On perjury: The Court disagreed with NPUM's contention that EGMPC committed perjury. The Court found no evidence that EGMPC intended to pursue the two cases concurrently, noting that the new petition was filed after the SC had informed parties that no further pleadings would be entertained in G.R. No. 73794 after its remand to the CA. On alleged violation of doctrine of non-alteration: The Court found EGMPC's argument that the Third Division's Resolution changed the Second Division's Decision to be without merit. The Court explained that at the time of the Second Division's Decision, the underlying civil cases were still pending, and the remand was for further proceedings on the merits. The Third Division's Resolution, issued after the ownership issue was settled, remanded the case for accounting, which was a logical progression of the proceedings. The Court also noted that EGMPC had raised this issue previously and it was denied with finality. On delegation of judicial function: The Court held that the CA did not delegate a judicial function by appointing an accountant to make computations. Citing American jurisprudence, the Court stated that commissioners or masters appointed to aid the court do not exercise judicial power, and their findings are merely advisory. The CA retained the power to decide, and Ms. Angelo's role was to prepare a report based on submitted documents, which the CA could adopt or reject. On denial of due process: The Court found EGMPC's claim of denial of due process to be without merit. The Court detailed the numerous opportunities EGMPC had to present its case, including the CA's arrangement of conferences for parties and their accountants. The Court also stated that it was not imperative for EGMPC to cross-examine the accountant who prepared EGMPC's computation, as Ms. Angelo was to make her own independent computation. The Court also noted that EGMPC had acquiesced to the use of NPUM's documents and actively participated in discussions regarding their contents. On authenticity of documents: The Court found that EGMPC had acquiesced to the use of documents submitted by NPUM, including financial statements, and actively participated in discussions about their contents. EGMPC's main objection pertained to the interpretation of entries, not their authenticity. The Court also noted that EGMPC's counsel had expressed amenability to Ms. Angelo's first report, which was based on NPUM's documents due to EGMPC's failure to submit its own. On liability for interest: The Court affirmed EGMPC's liability for interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%). The Court reasoned that EGMPC had an obligation to remit monthly 40% of its net gross collection and that there was no obstacle to its compliance, even with the unresolved ownership issue. The Court stated that EGMPC could have availed of the remedy of consignation under Article 1256 of the Civil Code to avoid the performance of its obligation becoming more onerous. By failing to consign the amounts due, EGMPC's obligation became more onerous, making it liable for interest. The Court also highlighted EGMPC's consistent attempts to avoid depositing the amounts due, even when required by previous SC resolutions, which constituted a forbearance of money.
Main Doctrine
A party who fails to consign amounts due, despite the existence of a creditor and the absence of just cause for refusal, becomes liable for interest on the amounts withheld, as such withholding constitutes a forbearance of money. Furthermore, the timely filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari is crucial for perfecting an appeal.