MANILA HERALD PUBLISHING CO., INC. v.

RAMOS
January 18, 1951 | TUASON, J. | Intrinsic Aids of Construction: Use of technical terms FACTS:
•Respondent Antonio Quirino filed a libel suit, docketed as civil case No.
PETITIONER: MANILA HERALD PUBLISHING CO., INC., doing business 11531, against Daily Record, a daily newspaper published in Manila,
under the name of Evening Herald Publishing Co., Inc., and Printers, Inc asking damages worth P90,000. With the filing of this suit, the plaintiff
RESPONDENTS: SIMEON RAMOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of secured a writ of preliminary attachment upon putting up a P50,000
Manila, et al. bond, and the Sheriff of the City of Manila levied an attachment upon
SUMMARY: A libel suit was filed against Daily Record. With the filing of this certain office and printing equipment found in the premises of the Daily
suit, the plaintiff secured a writ of preliminary attachment upon putting up a Record.
P50,000 bond. The sheriff levied an attachment upon the office of Daily record. • Thereafter the Manila Herald Publishing Co. Inc. and Printers, Inc.,
Manila Herald separate third party claims because they owned the property. filed with the sheriff separate third-party claims, alleging that they were
Unsuccessful in their attempt to quash the attachment the Manila Herald the owners of the property attached. Whereupon, the sheriff required of
commenced a joint suit against the sheriff, Quirino and Alto Surety and Insurance Quirino a counter bound of P41,500 to meet the claim of the Manila
Co. Inc. Judge Ramos dismissed the suit and declared that what Manila Herald Herald Publishing Co., Inc., and another bond of P59,500 to meet the
should do is just intervene in the libel case. The SC held that the Respondent court claim of Printers, Inc. These amounts, upon Quirino's motion filed under
acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case without any formal Section 13, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court, were reduced by the court to
motion to dismiss. Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides that the only instance P11,000 and P10,000 respectively.
in which the court may dismiss upon the court's own motion an action is, when • Unsuccessful in their attempt to quash the attachment the Manila Herald
the "plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial or to prosecute his action for Publishing Co., Inc. and Printers, Inc. commenced a joint suit against the
an unreasonable length of time or to comply with the Rules or any order of the sheriff, Quirino and Alto Surety and Insurance Co. Inc., in which the
court." Section 14 of rule 59 provides that "Nothing herein contained shall prevent former sought (1) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the
such third person from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action." attachment of the properties above mentioned and (2) P45,000 damages.
Action" has acquired a well-define, technical meaning, and it is in this restricted This suit was docketed as civil case No. 12263.
sense that the word "action" is used in the above rule. In employing the word • Whereas case No. 11531 was being handled by Judge Sanchez or
"commencement" the rule clearly indicates an action which originates an entire pending in the branch of the Court presided by him, case No. 12263 fell
proceeding and puts in motion the instruments of the court calling for summons, in the branch of Judge Pecson. Judge Pecson issued a writ of
answer, etc, and not any intermediary step taken in the course of the proceeding. preliminary injunction to the sheriff directing him to desist from
under the present Rules, "a third person claiming to be the owner of such property proceeding with the attachment of the said properties.
may, not only file a third-party claim with the sheriff, but also intervene in the • Upon the conclusion of that hearing, Judge Ramos required the parties
action to ask that the writ of attachment be quashed. to submit memoranda on the question whether "the subject matter of civil
DOCTRINE: Words with technical or legal meaning: case No. 12263 should be ventilated in an independent action or by
•General rule: words that have, or have been used in, a technical sense or those means of a complaint in intervention in civil case No. 11531."
that have been judicially construed to have a certain meaning should be Memoranda having been filed, His Honor declared that the suit, in case
interpreted according to the sense in which they have been PREVIOUSLY used, No. 12263, was "unnecessary, superfluous and illegal" and so dismissed
although the sense may vary from the strict or literal meaning of the words. the same. He held that what Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc., and
•Presumption: language used in a statute, which has a technical or well-known Printers, Inc., should do was intervene in Case No. 11531.
meaning, is used in that sense by the legislature. ISSUE/s:
SECTION 1. When proper. — A person may, at any period of a trial, be 1. Did Judge Ramos have authority to dismiss case No. 12263 at the stage
permitted by the court, in its discretion, to intervene in an action, if he has legal when it was thrown out of court?
interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an 2. Should the Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc., and Printers, Inc., come
interest against both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a as intervernors into the case for libel instead of bringing an independent
distribution of other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an action?
officer thereof. 3. Did Judge Pecson or Judge Ramos have jurisdiction in case No. 12263
to quash the attachment levied in case No. 11531?
Page 1 of 2
 grows out of the pending suit, the suit in which the order of attachment
HELD: was issued.
1. NO. The Respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion if not in
excess of its jurisdiction in dismissing the case without any formal Separate action was indeed said to be the correct and only procedure
motion to dismiss. contemplated by Act No. 190, intervention addition to, but not in
substitution of, the old process. The new Rules adopted section 121 of
Section 1 Rule 8 enumerates the grounds upon which an action may be Act No. 190 and added thereto Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of
dismissed, and it specifically ordains that a motion to this end be filed. Procedure. Combined, the two modes of redress are now section 1 of
In the light of this express requirement we do not believe that the Rule 13,1 the last clause of which is the newly added provision. The
court had power to dismiss the case without the requisite motion result is that, whereas, "under the old procedure, the third person could
duly presented. not intervene, he having no interest in the debt (or damages) sued upon
Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides for the cases in which an action by the plaintiff," under the present Rules, "a third person claiming to be
may be dismissed, and the inclusion of those therein provided excludes the owner of such property may, not only file a third-party claim with
any other, under the familiar maxim, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. the sheriff, but also intervene in the action to ask that the writ of
The only instance in which, according to said Rules, the court may attachment be quashed." Yet, the right to inetervene, unlike the right to
dismiss upon the court's own motion an action is, when the "plaintiff fails bring a new action, is not absolute but left to the sound discretion of the
to appear at the time of the trial or to prosecute his action for an court to allow. This qualification makes intervention less preferable to
unreasonable length of time or to comply with the Rules or any order of an independent action from the standpoint of the claimants, at least.
the court." Because availability of intervention depends upon the court in which
Case No. 11531 is pending, there would be assurance for the herein
2. NO. Section 14 of rule 59, which treats of the steps to betaken when petitioners that they would be permitted to come into that case.
property attached is claimed by the other person than that defendant or
his agent, contains the proviso that "Nothing herein contained shall 3 YES. It is true of course that property in custody of the law can not
prevent such third person from vindicating his claim to the property by be interferred with without the permission of the proper court, and
any proper action." What is "proper action"? Section 1 of Rule 2 defines property legally attached is property in custodia legis. But for the
action as "an ordinary suit in court of justice, by which one party reason just stated, this rule is confined to cases where the property
prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the belongs to the defendant or one in which the defendant has
prevention or redress of a wrong," while section 2, entitled proprietary interest. When the sheriff acting beyond the bounds of
"Commencement of Action," says that "civil action may be commenced his office seizes a stranger's property, the rule does not apply and
by filing a complaint with the court." interference with his custody is not interference with another court's
order of attachment.
”Action" has acquired a well-define, technical meaning, and it is in this
restricted sense that the word "action" is used in the above rule. In It may be argued that the third-party claim may be unfounded; but
employing the word "commencement" the rule clearly indicates an so may it be meritorious, for the matter. Speculations are however
action which originates an entire proceeding and puts in motion the beside the point. The title is the very issue in the case for the
instruments of the court calling for summons, answer, etc, and not any recovery of property or the dissolution of the attachment, and
intermediary step taken in the course of the proceeding whether by the pending final decision, the court may enter any interlocutory order
parties themselves or by a stranger. It would be strange indeed if the calculated to preserve the property in litigation and protect the
framers of the Rules of Court or the Legislature should have employed parties' rights and interests.
the term "proper action" instead of "intervention" or equivalent
expression if the intention had been just that. It was all the easier,
simplier and the more natural to say intervention if that had been the
purpose, since the asserted right of the third-party claimant necessarily

Page 2 of 2