Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Mangelen VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. for amounts owed, as the compromise agreement did not make him solidarily liable and solidary liability was not required by law or the nature of the obligation. The Court reinstated the decision of the trial court, except for the portion holding Habaluyas jointly liable, and reduced the attorney's fees award.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mangelen VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    20 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. for amounts owed, as the compromise agreement did not make him solidarily liable and solidary liability was not required by law or the nature of the obligation. The Court reinstated the decision of the trial court, except for the portion holding Habaluyas jointly liable, and reduced the attorney's fees award.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    MANGELEN VS CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. for amounts owed, as the compromise agreement did not make him solidarily liable and solidary liability was not required by law or the nature of the obligation. The Court reinstated the decision of the trial court, except for the portion holding Habaluyas jointly liable, and reduced the attorney's fees award.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Mangelen VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. for amounts owed, as the compromise agreement did not make him solidarily liable and solidary liability was not required by law or the nature of the obligation. The Court reinstated the decision of the trial court, except for the portion holding Habaluyas jointly liable, and reduced the attorney's fees award.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DATU SAMAD MANGELEN, petitioner,

    vs.
    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO HABALUYAS and
    HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.
    1992 Oct 29 3rd Division G.R. No. 88954

    FACTS:

    Private respondents filed an urgent motion to reconsider said order which


    was likewise denied by the court. Although they received a copy of the denial
    order, private respondents still did not file any answer to the complaint.
    Consequently, petitioner filed a motion to declare defendants in default and to be
    allowed to present evidence ex-parte, which the trial court granted in its Order.
    Pursuant thereto, petitioner presented his evidence ex-parte.

    The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to
    hold in abeyance further proceedings on the ground that they had filed with the
    then Intermediate Appellate Court a petition for certiorari raising the issues of
    improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and litis pendencia. That case was docketed as
    A.C.-G.R. No. 03742. 

    After considering in open court the said motion, and petitioner's opposition
    thereto and in view of the absence of a restraining order from the Intermediate
    Appellate Court enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the case, the latter
    issued an order denying the defendants' motion to set aside the order of default
    Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner based on the
    evidence submitted ex-parte; the dispositive portion of said decision was quoted
    earlier.

    Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, private respondents interposed an


    appeal before the Intermediate Appellate Court. The Fourth Division of said Court
    dismissed the petition of private respondents. Their subsequent petition for review
    under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the dismissal was denied by this
    Court in the resolution; the motion to reconsider the same was likewise denied by
    this Court.
    After reviewing the records of the case, public respondent promulgated a
    ten-page decision.
    ISSUE:

    Is the public respondent ruled out any merit in the defendants-appellants'


    (private respondents) contention that the consideration for the payment of the
    P600,000.00 pursuant to the Compromise Agreement.

    RULING:

    The Petition is GRANTED.

    The Supreme Court find the basis for holding private respondent Pedro
    Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with private respondent Habaluyas
    Enterprises, Inc. for the amounts adjudged. The Compromise Agreement was a
    corporate act of the latter with the former signing merely as its representative. No
    provision therein makes him solidarily liable with the corporation. Additionally,
    the liability arising from the obligation is not solidarily. There is solidarily liability
    only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the
    obligation requires solidarity. The trial court simply cannot write into the
    Compromise Agreement a stipulation or condition which the parties did not
    contemplate. It would have been entirely different if petitioner alleged and proved
    grounds allowing the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.

    The resolution of public respondent of C.A.-G.R. CV No. 04585 is SET


    ASIDE and its Decision is hereby REINSTATED. As modified, the Decision of
    the trial court of in Civil Case No. 84-22306 is affirmed in all respects except that
    the portion holding private respondent Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable
    with private respondent Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. and awarding, moral and
    exemplary damages, is hereby DELETED and SET ASIDE. Furthermore, the
    award of attorney's fees is hereby reduced to P25.000.00.

    You might also like