Radiola Toshiba Philippines Inc. vs. The Intermediate Apellate Court

G.R. No. 75222, July 18, 1991

Facts:

            The petitioner obtained a levy on the attachment against the properties of Carlos Gatmaytan and Teresita Gatmaytan un Civil case o. 35946 for collection of sum of money before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, Pasig, Metro Manila. A few months later three creditors filed another petition against Gatmaytan and Teresita Gatmaytan for involuntary insolvency, docketed as special proceedings No. 1548 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and Angeles city.

            A favorable judgment was obtained of by the petitioner in Civil case No. 35946. The court ordered for the consolidation of ownership of petitioner over said property but respondent sheriff of Angeles City refused to issue a final ceritificate of sale because of the pending insolvency proceedings.

            Court of First Instance of Angeles City and Intermediate Appellate Court rules against petitioner

Issue:

            Whether or not the levy on attachment in favor of petitioner in dissolved by the insolvency proceedings against respondents commenced for months after the said attachment.

Held:

            Section 32 (of the Insolvency Law). As soon as an assignee is elected or appointed and qualified, the clerk of court shall, by an instrument under his hand and seal of the court, assign and convey to the assignee all the real and personal property, estate and effects of the debtor with all his deeds, books and papers relating thereto, and such assignment shall relate back to the commencement of the proceedings in insolvency, and shall relate back to the acts upon the adjudication was founded, and by operation of law shall vest the title to all such property, estate and effects in the assignee, although the same is then attached in mesne process, as the property of debtor. Such assignment shall operate to vest in the assignee all of the estate of the insolvent debtor not exempt by law from execution. It shall dissolved any attachment levied within one month next preceding the commencement of the insolvency proceedings and vacate and set aside any judgment entered in any action commenced within thirty days immediately prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings and shall set aside any judgment entered by default or consent of the debtor within thirty days immediately prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings.

            Section 79. When an attachment has been made and is not dissolved before the commencement of proceedings in insolvency, or is dissolved by an undertaking given by the defendant, if the claim upon which attachment suit was commenced is proved against the estate of the debtor, the plaintiff may prove the legal costs and disbursements of the suit, and in keeping of the property, and the amount thereof shall be a preferred debt.  

There is no conflicts between the two provisions.

Statutory Construction; where a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation, court should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction as will render the provision thereof operative and effective and harmonious with each other. – but even granting that such conflicts exists, it may be stated that in construing a statute, courts should adopt a construction that will give effect to every part of the statute, if at all possible. This rule is expressed in the maxim, ut magis valeat quam pereat or that construction is to be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute – its every word, hence when a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the court should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction as will render the provision thereof operative and effective and harmonious with each other.    

JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commision and Ulpiano L. Delos Santos

G.R. No. 109835, November 2, 1993

Facts:

            NLRC dismissed JMM Promotions and Management, Inc.’s appeal in the ground of failure to post the require appeal bond un accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code and Rule VI Section 6 of the new rules of procedure of the NLRC, which provides:

Article 223. In a case of a judgment involving monetary award, an appeal of the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from

Section 6. Bond – In case the decision of a labor arbiter involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the commission or Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award

            The petitioner insists that the appeal bond is not necessary for it already paid a license fee of P30,000.00, a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of P50,000.00 as required under section 4, rule II, book II of the POEA Rules. Also, the petitioner paid P200,000.00 in compliance with section 17, rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules, as escrow.

Issue:

            Whether or not petitioner is required to post an appeal bond?

Held:

            YES, the rules are clear, in interpretating a statute, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect.

            In addition to the amount paid by the petitioner, an appeal in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal from a decision provided.

            In Statutory Construction, construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of harmonious whole. We find that section 6 compliments section 4 and section 17.