Posted by Stephanie Tuquib on 25 July 2018
FACTS:
In May 2001, the ATO filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Miaque in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, Branch 3. The MTCC subsequently rendered a Decision finding [Miaque] to be unlawfully detaining the premises. Miaque appealed the MTCC Decision to the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 24, which the latter affirmed the MTCC Decision in its entirety. Miaque's motion for reconsideration was denied. Miaque questioned the RTC Decision in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review. In a Decision dated April 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC Decision. Miaque moved for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated January 5, 2006. Miaque brought the case to the Supreme Court in a petition for review. In a Resolution10 dated February 22, 2006, the petition was denied as no reversible error in the Court of Appeals Decision was sufficiently shown. The motion for reconsideration of Miaque was denied with finality.
FACTS:
In May 2001, the ATO filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Miaque in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, Branch 3. The MTCC subsequently rendered a Decision finding [Miaque] to be unlawfully detaining the premises. Miaque appealed the MTCC Decision to the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 24, which the latter affirmed the MTCC Decision in its entirety. Miaque's motion for reconsideration was denied. Miaque questioned the RTC Decision in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review. In a Decision dated April 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC Decision. Miaque moved for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated January 5, 2006. Miaque brought the case to the Supreme Court in a petition for review. In a Resolution10 dated February 22, 2006, the petition was denied as no reversible error in the Court of Appeals Decision was sufficiently shown. The motion for reconsideration of Miaque was denied with finality.
Incidentally, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective for a period of 60 days and required Miaque to post a bond in the amount of P100,000.00.12 After the lapse of the TRO, the ATO filed an urgent motion for the execution of the RTC. The RTC granted the ATO's motion.
Miaque sought reconsideration of the above Order but the RTC denied the motion and thereafter, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution.
However, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and enjoining the ATO and all persons acting in its behalf from enforcing the respective Decisions of the MTCC and the RTC while CA-G.R. SP No. 79439 is pending. Thus, after the dismissal of Miaque's petition for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439, the ATO filed another urgent motion for execution of the RTC Decision. In its motion, the ATO pointed out that the supersedeas bond filed by Miaque had lapsed and was not renewed and that the rental and concessionaire privilege fees have not been paid at all in violation of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.19 Miaque again opposed the ATO's urgent motion for execution,20 while the ATO filed a supplemental urgent motion for execution stating that Miaque's appeal in the Court of Appeals had been dismissed.21cralawred
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 which granted petitioner's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603.
HELD:
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the challenge to the Order dated March 29, 2006 granting a TRO, effective for 60 days, is moot as its effectivity had already lapsed.
Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides the key to that question:
Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. (Emphasis supplied.)
This reflects Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure:
Sec. 21. Appeal. - The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The above provisions are supplemented and reinforced by Section 4, Rule 39 and Section 8(b), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court which respectively provide:
Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party.
x x x x
Sec. 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.
(a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner.
The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
(b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise. (Emphases supplied.)
The first characteristic -- the judgment of the RTC is immediately executory -- is emphasized by the fact that no resolutory condition has been imposed that will prevent or stay the execution of the RTC's judgment.45 The significance of this may be better appreciated by comparing Section 21 of Rule 70 with its precursor, Section 10, Rule 70 of the 1964 Rules of Court which provided:
Sec. 10. Stay of execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. Where defendant appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance, execution of said judgment, with respect to the restoration of possession, shall not be stayed unless the appellant deposits the same amounts and within the periods referred to in section 8 of this rule to be disposed of in the same manner as therein provided.
The second characteristic -- the judgment of the RTC is not stayed by an appeal taken therefrom -- reinforces the first. The judgment of the RTC in an ejectment case is enforceable upon its rendition and, upon motion, immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal taken therefrom.
To reiterate, despite the immediately executory nature of the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases, which judgment is not stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, the Court of Appeals may issue a writ of preliminary injunction that will restrain or enjoin the execution of the RTC's judgment. In the exercise of such authority, the Court of Appeals should constantly be aware that the grant of a preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat that it should be made with great caution.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. In the absence of the same, and where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the decisions of the MTCC in Civil Case No. 01 (38), of the RTC in Civil Case No. 02-27292, and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439 unanimously recognized the right of the ATO to possession of the property and the corresponding obligation of Miaque to immediately vacate the subject premises. This means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Miaque does not have any right to continue in possession of the said premises. It is therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement that Miaque �appears to have a clear legal right to hold on to the premises leased by him from ATO at least until such time when he shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of judgment caused to be issued by the MTCC in Iloilo City, which is the court of origin of the decision promulgated by this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439. Unfortunately, in its Resolution dated May 30, 2006 granting a writ of preliminary injunction in Miaque's favor, the Court of Appeals did not state the source or basis of Miaque's clear legal right to hold on to the [said] premises. This is fatal.
The sole basis of the Court of Appeals in issuing its Resolution dated May 30, 2006 is its view that the RTC has no jurisdiction to order the issuance of [the] writ of execution because, when it gave due course to the petition for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439, the RTC was already divested of jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 8(a), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals is mistaken. It disregards both (1) the immediately executory nature of the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases, and (2) the rule that such judgment of the RTC is not stayed by an appeal taken therefrom. It ignores the nature of the RTC's function to issue a writ of execution of its judgment in an ejectment case as ministerial and not discretionary.
The RTC was validly exercising its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court when it issued the writs of execution dated August 16, 2004 and June 2, 2005. While the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439 enjoined the execution of the RTC's judgment during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 79439, the RTC revived the writs of execution dated August 16, 2004 and June 1, 2005 in its Order dated March 20, 2006, after the Court of Appeals denied Miaque's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439. Indeed, the said writs of execution need not even be revived because they continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion, that is within five years from entry of judgment, pursuant to Section 14,60 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 661 of the same Rule.
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.62 In this case, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 granting Miaque's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction contrary to Section 21, Rule 70 and other relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as this Court's pronouncements in Teresa T. Gonzales LaO & Co., Inc.63and Nisce.64 Thus, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603.
This Court notes that the controversy between the parties in this case has been unduly protracted, considering that the decisions of the MTCC, the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court in favor of the ATO and against Miaque on the ejectment case are already final and executory. The Court of Appeals should therefore proceed expeditiously in resolving CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603.
