Capa v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Engr. Wildemar Capa and Dimpna Capa (petitioners) owned a motor banca, M/B CLM Zoltan, used for their fish trading business. On April 21, 1993, this vessel collided with M/V Cebu Pearl, owned by United Vismin Shipping Lines, Inc. (private respondent United Vismin) and manned by Captain Rene Yhapon, resulting in the sinking of the petitioners' vessel. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against United Vismin and Captain and Mrs. Rene Yhapon with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the defendants to pay substantial damages. The private respondents appealed this decision. Subsequently, petitioners sought and obtained execution of the judgment pending appeal due to United Vismin's reported cessation of operations. Sheriff Jessie A. Belarmino levied two vessels owned by United Vismin. Jocelyn Raco, through her attorney-in-fact Jeffrey Tolosa, filed a third-party claim over these vessels. The RTC lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of the appeal and elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners then filed a motion with the CA to approve a sheriff's indemnity bond, which was denied for non-compliance with CA directives. Later, petitioners filed a motion with the CA to deny the third-party claim and admit their claim for damages, which the CA noted without action, stating it should have been filed with the RTC. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and mandamus from the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's resolution that noted their motion without action. They argue the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to deny the third-party claim, which they contend is void because it was signed by an attorney-in-fact without a proper special power of attorney. They also argue the CA should have taken cognizance of their claim for damages against the third-party claimant, asserting the CA had jurisdiction as the case records were already transmitted. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to act on petitioners' Motion to Deny Third-Party Claim with Motion to Admit Claim for Damages. Whether the Court of Appeals unlawfully neglected its duty by refusing to take cognizance of petitioners' claim for damages against the third-party claimant and her attorney-in-fact.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not acting on the petitioners' motion. The claim for damages must be filed in the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' failure to act on the Motion to Deny Third-Party Claim with Motion to Admit Claim for Damages: The Court held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The invalidity of the third-party claim affidavit should have been raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court, which still had jurisdiction at the time the claim was filed. Petitioners' subsequent filing of an indemnity bond with the sheriff and their motion to approve this bond with the CA indicated a waiver of the alleged defect in the affidavit. By seeking the approval of the indemnity bond, petitioners implicitly acknowledged the validity of the third-party claim process, thus precluding them from later challenging the affidavit's validity before the appellate court. The CA correctly noted without action the motion, as it should have been filed with the RTC before the records were elevated. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' refusal to take cognizance of the claim for damages: The Court found no basis for the petition for mandamus. The second paragraph of Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that a claim for damages against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim may be filed in the same court where the third-party claim was filed or in a separate action. Therefore, the petitioners' claim for damages must be filed in the trial court, not the appellate court. This procedure ensures the filing of proper pleadings and allows for a trial where parties can submit their respective evidence. The CA had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for damages.
Main Doctrine
A motion to deny a third-party claim and admit a claim for damages should be filed with the trial court before the records are elevated to the appellate court, as the appellate court may not entertain such motions after it has lost jurisdiction over the case, especially if the defect in the third-party claim was not raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. Claims for damages arising from a frivolous third-party claim must be filed in the trial court, either in the same case or in a separate action.