Abrenica - v - Abrenica
Facts:
1.
Pationer was a partner of individual respondents
in the Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan
2.
Respondents filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) 2 cases against petitioner. First case, they alleged
that petitioner refused to return partnership funds representing profits from
the sale of a parcel of land in Batangas. Second case, respondents sought to
recover from petitioner retainer fees that he received from two clients of the
firm and the balance of the cash advance that he obtained.
3.
SEC transferred the cases to RTC Quezon City
pursuant to RA 8799, RTC decided in favour of respondents
5.
Filed with the CA. Respondents opposed the
motion. CA denied petitioner's motions: resolution and MOR. Petitioners filed
with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment of the RTC QC. CA dismissed.
Petitioners did not give up; filed for AMENDED PETITION!!!
6.
Petitioners filed HUMBLE Motion for
Reconsideration RTC QC; while pending Erlando filed URGENT Omnibus Motion
1.
Erlando alleges that the sheriff had levied on
properties belonging to his children and petitioner Joena
2.
RTC still had to determine the manner of
distribution of the firm’s assets and the value of the levied properties.
3.
Court to determine the issue of whether the Rule
41 appeal was the correct remedy.
7.
Joena filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim
with RTC QC alleging that she and her stepchildren owned a number of the
personal properties sought to be levied.
1.
half of the two (2) motor vehicles
2.
the house and lot which formed part of the
absolute community of property
3.
the real property, being a family home, and the
furniture and the utensils necessary for housekeeping having a depreciated
combined value of P100,000 were exempt from execution pursuant to Rule 39,
Section 13 of the Rules of Court.
8.
On the hearing set by the RTC QC, Erlando moved
to withdraw his motion on account of ongoing negotiations with respondents
(because amicable settlement of money)
9.
They got back to the CA decisions on the
dismissal of their second MOR which were filed late and rehashed. He assailed
one of the points
1.
Joena’s
right to due process was violated when she was not made a party-in-interest to
the proceedings in the lower courts, even if her half of the absolute community
of property was included in the execution of the judgment rendered by RTC QC
10. While
negotiations are pending on the CA, they filed another action in RTC Marikina
City, which prompted this action by the respondents for forum shopping
Issue: WON petitioners were allegedly
denied due process when the CA rejected their 2nd attempt at the annulment of
the Decision of the RTC and their Humble Motion for Reconsideration
Held/Ratio: DENIED
***Joena**** it must be recalled that
after she filed her Affidavit of Third Party Claim and petitioner Erlando filed
his Urgent Omnibus Motion raising the same issues contained in that third-party
claim, he subsequently filed two Motions withdrawing his Urgent Omnibus Motion.
Petitioner Joena, meanwhile, no longer pursued her third-party claim or any
other remedy available to her. Her failure to act gives this Court the
impression that she was no longer interested in her case. Thus, it was through
her own fault that she was not able to ventilate her claim.
Furthermore,
it appears from the records that petitioner Erlando was first married to a
certain Ma. Aline Lovejoy Padua. They had three children. After the dissolution
of the first marriage of Erlando, he and Joena got married. In her Affidavit,
Joena alleged that she represented her stepchildren; that the levied personal
properties – in
particular, a piano with a chair, computer equipment and a computer table – were owned by the latter. We
note that two of these stepchildren were already of legal age when Joena filed
her Affidavit. As to Patrik Randel, parental authority over him belongs to his
parents. Absent any special power of attorney authorizing Joena to represent Erlando’s
children, her claim cannot be sustained.
Petitioner
Joena also asserted that the 2 motor vehicles purchased in 1992 and 1997, as
well as the house and lot formed part of the absolute community regime. However,
Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family Code excludes from the community property the
property acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate
descendants by a former marriage; and the fruits and the income, if any, of
that property. Neither these two vehicles nor the house and lot belong to the
second marriage.
No
forum shopping because there involved different causes of action in RTC
Marikina City.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
