Go v. Abrogar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent International Exchange Bank filed a complaint for a sum of money with an application for a writ of attachment against Alberto Looyuko and petitioner Jimmy T. Go. A Writ of Attachment was issued, and Sheriff Arturo Flores levied on attachment shares of stock of petitioner with China Banking Corporation and parcels of land. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the bank, ordering Looyuko and petitioner to pay P96 million. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued. Private respondent filed another motion for a writ of execution against petitioner alone, which was granted. Sheriff Renato Flora issued a Notice of Garnishment to China Banking Corporation regarding petitioner's shares of stock. The Corporate Secretary of China Banking Corporation informed Sheriff Flora that one certificate was registered to Alberto Looyuko, and the other certificates were "no longer outstanding." Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Motion to Direct China Banking Corporation To Show Cause and For Sheriff Renato C. Flora to Desist from Implementing the Unlawful Writ of Execution, praying that China Banking Corporation explain the status of his shares and that the sheriff desist from implementing the writ. The RTC denied the motion, stating there was no reason to direct the sheriff to desist from implementing a valid writ of execution and that the explanation of China Banking Corporation would not affect the implementation of the writ. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The CA noted that the shares were transferred to Alberto Looyuko in February 1997 through a blank endorsement signed by petitioner, as admitted by petitioner in his Affidavit-Complaint for estafa against Looyuko. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's decision and its finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner argued that the CA erred in considering the Affidavit-Complaint for estafa, which was raised for the first time on appeal, and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and consequently in finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the court a quo.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the Court of Appeals’ Decision promulgated on September 19, 2001, and its Resolution dated March 7, 2002, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appellate court may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal: The Court held that the CA, in the interest of justice, may take into account the content of the Affidavit-Complaint for estafa filed by the petitioner himself. This is particularly relevant as the petitioner was seeking an explanation for the whereabouts of his shares, which he himself admitted in the affidavit were no longer in his name. The Court found no surprise or disadvantage caused to the petitioner since the Affidavit-Complaint was his own document. The CA's consideration of this evidence was deemed appropriate to clarify the situation regarding the shares, which had been declared "no longer outstanding" by China Banking Corporation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner himself admitted the existence of the Affidavit-Complaint in his petition before the Supreme Court, making its consideration by the CA a matter of clearing up factual discrepancies. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and consequently in finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the court a quo: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment. The RTC denied petitioner's motion because it found no reason to direct the sheriff to desist from implementing a valid writ of execution. The Court noted that the RTC was not obligated to seek an explanation from China Banking Corporation before proceeding with the execution, especially since other properties of the petitioner were available to satisfy the judgment. The RTC's action was in accordance with paragraph (b), Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows for the levy on personal properties first, and then on real properties if the personal properties are insufficient. The Court agreed with the CA that the shares in question had been transferred to Alberto Looyuko in February 1997 through a blank endorsement by the petitioner, a fact admitted by the petitioner in his Affidavit-Complaint for estafa. Therefore, the petitioner was aware that these shares were no longer in his name when the levy on attachment was served, and they could not have been placed in custodia legis by that levy.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to direct a bank to show cause why shares of stock previously attached were no longer outstanding, when there are other properties of the judgment debtor sufficient to satisfy the judgment, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The court may consider evidence not formally presented in the trial court, such as an affidavit-complaint, in the interest of justice, especially when the party invoking the absence of such evidence is the one who executed it.