ChanRobles Virtual law Library

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2005.

G.R. No. 166195 (National Steel Corporation vs. The Honorable Maximino Magno-Libre and Alberto O. Borres, in their official capacity as Presiding Judge and Branch Sheriff, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte in Iligan City - Branch 5, and Landtrade Realty Corporation.)

At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 31, 2004 decision ^[1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80510, upholding the (1) Order dated October 28, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City, Branch 5, in its Civil Case No. 6426 which granted private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal; and (2) the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto.

On August 28, 2000, in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Iligan City, respondent Landtrade Realty Corporation (Landtrade) filed a complaint for Ejectment & Damages ^[2] cralaw against petitioner National Steel Corporation (NSC). In its complaint, Landtrade alleged that it is the owner of two (2) parcels of adjoining land with a combined area of 382,342 square meters, located in sitio Nunucan, Overton, Fuentes, Brgy. Maria Cristina, Iligan City; that NSC has been occupying a portion of about 100,000 square meters thereof without any contract and without paying rental therefor, its occupancy being at the mere tolerance of Landtrade; and that despite demands to pay and vacate, NSC refused to leave the premises.

After trial, the MTCC rendered judgment in favor of Landtrade, as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Land Trade Realty Corporation represented by Max C. Tabimina and against defendant National Steel Corporation, the Interin Receivership Committee represented by Chairman Atty. Monico V. Jacob now represented by Atty. Danilo L. Concepcion, Liquador of National Steel Corporation, ordering:

1.����� Defendant, his agent or representative or any person acting in his behalf or under his authority to vacate the premises in question;

2.����� Defendant to pay plaintiff Php 1,500,000.00 yearly as fair rental value for the use and occupation of the premises in question, from June 29,1978 until defendant shall have vacated the same;

3.����� Defendant to pay plaintiff twenty thousand (Php20,000.00) as and for attorney's fees;

4.����� Defendant shall pay the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED". ^[3] cralaw

This was appealed by NSC to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Iligan City whereat the appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. 6426 and assigned to Branch 5 thereof.

Meanwhile, Landtrade filed a motion for the execution pending appeal of the MTCC decision, ^[4] cralaw which motion was granted by the RTC in its Order ^[5] cralaw dated October 28, 2003, and pursuant thereto, a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal ^[6] cralaw was issued by said court on the same date.

NSC then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and certiorari, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80510, alleging that the aforementioned order and writ issued by the RTC were made without jurisdiction.

In the herein assailed decision dated March 31, 2004, ^[7] cralaw the Court of Appeals upheld the challenged order and writ issued by the RTC and accordingly denied NSC's petition, thus:

"WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED, and accordingly the prayer for preliminary injunction is DENIED".

In time, NSC moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied by the appellate court in its resolution of November 24, 2004. ^[8] cralaw

Undaunted, NSC comes to this Court via the present recourse, insisting that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the challenged Order and writ of the RTC despite the fact that both the latter court and the MTCC have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that on account of its pending petition for Suspension of Payments, Formation of Management Committee and/or Appointment of Rehabilitation Receiver and Approval of Rehabilitation Plan before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment filed against it by Landtrade properly pertained to the SEC, invoking, in support thereof, Section 5 of Presidential Decree 902-A, as amended, quoted below, as follows:

SECTION 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:

xxx������ xxx������ xxx

d)����� Petitions of corporations, partnership or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses property to cover all of its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the Management Committee created pursuant to this Decree.

Petitioner's posture does not persuade.

To begin with, Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A, partly quoted, supra, in the petition, has been superseded by Republic Act No. 8799 or the Securities Regulation Code of July 19, 2000, which pertinently states:

5.2.�� The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (10) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

Clear it is from the above that SEC has no jurisdiction over ejectment suits, assuming for the nonce that it ever had one.

But even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 8799, by no stretch of legal interpretation could it be said that SEC ever had jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Republic Act No. 7691, ^[9] cralaw reiterating earlier laws defining jurisdiction, provides:

Sec. 3. Section 33 of the same law (i.e., BP 129) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

xxx������ xxx������ xxx

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and xxx

Inarguably, the MTCC had jurisdiction over the subject unlawful detainer suit, and this was neither removed nor modified by NSC's pending petition, supra, before the SEC, nor by the actions the SEC may have taken thereon. Such a proceeding did not make NSC subject to esoteric rules nor allow it to invoke this as a mantra to make itself impervious to suits properly belonging to the regular courts, like the ejectment case herein involved. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals in its impugned decision of March 31, 2004:

"On the last point, the preferential or prior resolution of the question of jurisdiction is not a bar to the matter of execution pending appeal. And the item of indispensable parties treated above, these points too are not determinative of jurisdiction or the lack of it",

As it were, the ejectment case filed by Landtrade against petitioner NSC is totally extraneous from claims against distressed corporations over which the SEC admittedly holds sway. It is the nature of the main case, unquestionably for ejectment, that is determinative of jurisdiction ^[10] cralaw without regard to the incidental claim for damages.

For sure, this Court has consistently held that judgment in favor of plaintiff in an unlawful detainer suit is immediately executory to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of his property. Section 19, Rule 70, of the Rules of Court is clear and explicit in the matter of execution pending appeal in ejectment cases and how it may be stayed. It provides:

"SEC. 8. Immediate execution of judgment; How to stay the same.- If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the municipal trial court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determine by the judgment of the municipal trial court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court, on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the municipal trial court, with the other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed".

It can thus be seen that to stay the immediate execution of judgment in unlawful detainer suits while appeal is pending, the foregoing provision requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. Failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment despite appeal, the duty of the court in this respect being "ministerial and imperative". ^[11] cralaw Hence, even if NSC perfected its appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, as here, the immediate execution of the judgment automatically follows. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond, by itself, will not stay execution if the appeal is not timely perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal. ^[12] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Assistant Division Clerk of Court