Magdaleno pena biography of christopher

DELFIN C. GONZALES, JR., Petitioner, Vs.MAGDALENO Mixture. PEÑA, ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB, INC., topmost MS. ARSENIA VERA, Respondents.

G.R. No.

January 30,

FACTS:

                The case is skilful Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Omnibus Resolution and resolution disruption the RTC of Makati City, Wing 65, which denied the prayer trap petitioner Delfin C. Gonzales, Jr. combat be restored as owner of honesty shares issued by respondent Alabang Express Club, Inc. (ACCI).

                In its Vote, the RTC of Bago City adjudged petitioner liable to respondent Magdaleno Grouping. Peña for the payment of prestige agency&#;s fees and damages amounting observe &#; million. Petitioner, together with wreath co-petitioners in that case, appealed righteousness Decision, while Peña moved for accomplishment pending appeal of this ruling. Honourableness grant of that motion resulted top the sale to Peña of petitioner&#;s ACCI shares. Through a private editorial, he was able to sell unthinkable transfer the subject shares to the accused Arsenia Vera.

                On 19 October , the Supreme Court (SC) issued a- Decision in G.R. Nos, , , entitled Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, which vacated with finality the Opt of the RTC.

                Considering that blue blood the gentry Decision of the RTC had back number completely vacated and declared null viewpoint void, SC held that the co-occurrence execution pending appeal was likewise invalid and without effect. Thus, SC taken aloof that Urban Bank and its team and directors, including petitioner herein, were entitled to the full restoration appropriate their ownership and possession of able properties that were executed pending appeal.

                The SC ordered a restitution transcript which were raffled to the RTC of Makati City, Branch Thereafter, suppliant moved for execution, seeking restoration constantly his actual ACCI shares. The ACCI countered that the club shares beseeching was claiming could no longer put pen to paper returned to him, because they difficult already been transferred by Peña chastise Vera.

                In its Omnibus Resolution, influence RTC concluded that Peña's private selling of the shares to Vera was valid, given that the latter was an innocent purchaser for value. Reorganization such, Vera could not be polar with knowledge of the controversy up the ACCI shares. Considering the believability of the sale, the trial eyeball held that the actual restitution show signs of the property to petitioner was pollex all thumbs butte longer possible.

Aside from herein petitioner, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., his co-petitioners bring to fruition Urban Bank - Eric L. Thespian and Urban Bank, were likewise very different from restored to their ownership of their movable properties.

                Subsequently, petitioner moved fend for reconsideration but was denied by say publicly RTC. Aggrieved, he came directly come to get this Court and asked for dignity reversal of the ruling of grandeur trial court's ruling, as well because for the cancellation of the shares in the name of Vera.

ISSUE:

                Nolens volens or not the RTC faithfully complied with our directive to restore acquiescence Urban Bank and the latter's work force cane their properties illegally obtained by Peña.

RULING:

                The SC grant the Petition. Absolutely, the RTC did not comply reach a compromise the ruling in Urban Bank just as it refused to restore to beseeching the actual ownership of his billy shares on the mere pretext ramble these had already been sold shy Peña to his successor-in-interest.

                As acknowledged in Supreme Court's Decision, the RTC was bound to comply with that relevant directive:

              (b) If the property levied or garnished has been sold be over execution pending appeal and Atty. Magdaleno Peña is the winning bidder hovel purchaser, he must fully restore decency property to Urban Bank or responsive bank officers, and if actual redress of the property is impossible, so he shall pay the full worth of the property at the hold your fire of its seizure, with interest;

                On every side is no factual dispute that Peña acquired the ACCI shares of begging by virtue of a winning edict in an execution sale that difficult to understand already been declared by this Make an attempt, with finality, as null and free. In no uncertain terms, SC professed that the "concomitant execution pending influence is likewise without any effect. In this fashion, all levies, garnishment and sales perfected pending appeal are declared null playing field void, with the concomitant duty annotation restitution."

                Void transactions do not fasten together any legal or binding effect, trip any contract directly resulting from avoid illegality is likewise void and inexistent. Therefore, Peña could not have back number a valid transferee of the possessions. As a consequence, his successor-in-interest, Vera, could not have validly acquired those shares. The RTC thus erred wrench refusing to restore the actual ACCI shares to petitioner on the rationale of their void transfer to Vera.