Biana v. Gimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a labor dispute where Santos B. Mendones sued Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez for unpaid wages and other monetary claims. A labor arbiter ordered the defendants to pay Mendones P1,520.00 plus P8.00 daily from August 1, 1978, until reinstatement, and P3,168.00 for sheriff's fees. The judgment obligation, computed at P5,248.50, remained unpaid, leading to the levy and auction of four parcels of urban land registered in the names of George Gimenez and other Gimenez family members. Mendones was the sole bidder at the auction, purchasing the property for P8,908.50. Procedural History: Respondent George Gimenez claimed he was not properly notified of the execution sale. He later attempted to redeem the property by paying the redemption price through a series of checks to Provincial Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena, which the sheriff acknowledged receiving in full. However, Deputy Sheriff Renato Madera later informed Gimenez's counsel that there was an outstanding balance and proceeded to execute a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of Mendones. Gimenez then filed a special civil action for mandamus with damages against the Provincial Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff Madera, seeking to compel the execution of a deed of redemption or, alternatively, to nullify the Definite Deed of Sale. Santos Mendones intervened, asserting his rights as the buyer at the auction. During the pendency of the case, Mendones assigned his rights to the petitioner, Jaime B. Biana. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Gimenez, declaring the Definite Deed of Sale void and ordering the execution of a Deed of Redemption, also awarding damages and attorney's fees against Biana. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner Jaime B. Biana seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that affirmed the trial court's ruling. Biana argues that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's conversion of a special civil action for mandamus into an ordinary civil action with multiple reliefs, in disregarding judicial impartiality, in erroneously concluding that a valid redemption was made via postdated checks, and in allowing mandamus for an already performed act. He also contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding moral damages and attorney's fees against him when these were not prayed for in the original mandamus petition, and that the act of executing a deed of redemption involves discretion. The core issue is whether the Provincial Sheriff can be legally compelled to execute a deed of redemption in favor of respondent Gimenez, particularly given the tender of checks and the subsequent execution of a definite deed of sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's conversion of a special civil action for mandamus into an ordinary civil action with multiple reliefs. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's conclusion that respondent made a valid redemption by means of postdated checks. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that mandamus is a remedy for official inaction and not for correcting acts already performed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's award of moral damages and attorney's fees against the petitioner when no such demand was made in the original complaint for mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conversion of the mandamus action: The Court held that the trial court did not err in converting the special civil action for mandamus into an ordinary civil action with multiple reliefs. The petition for mandamus explicitly prayed for the declaration of nullity of the definite deed of sale if one was executed. To give effect to the order compelling the Provincial Sheriff to execute a Deed of Redemption, it was necessary to annul the Definite Deed of Sale. Allowing the definite deed of sale to stand would render the writ of mandamus a mere farce. The Court emphasized that an independent action for nullification would result in multiplicity of suits, especially since the mandamus case was filed over two decades prior. The Court found it appropriate to resolve all issues within the existing case to give full effect to the findings that a valid redemption occurred within the reglementary period. On the validity of redemption by postdated checks: The Court affirmed the ruling that a tender of a check, even if postdated, is sufficient to compel redemption. The Court distinguished this case from Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, where a check was for the payment of a judgment obligation and the sheriff absconded. In this case, the transaction involved the exercise of a right of redemption, not the payment of an obligation. The settled rule is that a mere tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption, although it does not, in itself, constitute payment that relieves the redemptioner from liability. The Court noted that Sheriff Garchitorena did not abscond, and the checks were deducted from respondent's liability by Sheriff Madera in his itemization. The issuance of checks to the Provincial Sheriff, who issued a receipt acknowledging full payment, was deemed sufficient to exercise the right of redemption. On the propriety of mandamus for acts already performed: The Court found no error in the use of mandamus. While mandamus generally addresses official inaction, the petition for mandamus with damages included an alternative prayer to declare the Definite Deed of Sale null and void. The Court reiterated that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by addressing the prayer for nullification, which was necessary to give effect to the order for the execution of a deed of redemption. To deny the relief sought based on a technicality would defeat the purpose of the law and sanction actions clearly in violation of settled jurisprudence. The Court found that the trial court's actions were in consonance with the findings that a valid redemption had been made. On the award of moral damages and attorney's fees: The Court upheld the award of moral damages and attorney's fees. It clarified that petitioner Biana, as the successor-in-interest of Mendones, was bound by Mendones' actions. Mendones had intervened in the mandamus case, becoming a party-respondent against whom Gimenez prayed for damages. The trial court found that respondent Gimenez suffered mental anguish, humiliation, and social ridicule due to the 'patently void acts' of the sheriff in collusion with the intervenor (Mendones, and by extension, petitioner Biana) in enforcing the writ of execution. The Court found that the petitioner insisted on continuing the litigation despite knowing the original claim was for a small sum, hoping to unjustly enrich himself over a property valued at ₱40,000,000.00. This conduct justified the award of moral damages and attorney's fees.
Main Doctrine
A tender of a check, even if postdated, is sufficient to compel redemption, as the exercise of the right of redemption is not strictly governed by the rules on payment of obligations, and the check serves as a manifestation of the redemptioner's intent and liability to pay the redemption price.