Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > May 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-55972 May 13, 1981 - PHILIPPINE HOLDING CORPORATION v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-55972. May 13, 1981.]

PHILIPPINE HOLDING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXXIX, and ROMULO C. FIGUEROA, Respondents.

Byron V. Belarmino for Petitioner.

Victor C. Aquino for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


While the decision of the City Court evicting respondent lessee Romulo Figueroa from the premises owned by the petitioner corporation and lessor, was on appeal at the Court of First Instance, respondent failed to deposit the monthly rentals that had fallen due. In view thereof, petitioner moved for execution which was granted by respondent Judge but the writ of execution was however recalled on the ground that the Court noted that respondent lessee, in order to stay execution, offered as supersedeas bond a mortgage executed in favor of petitioner on real estate property which is sufficient to cover up the money judgment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition.

On certiorari and mandamus, the Supreme Court ruled that under the mandatory provisions of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, failure of the defendant-lessee to make cash deposits for current rentals calls for immediate execution of the judgment, even if the supersedeas bond filed cover both the back rents and current rents and the Court of First Instance has no discretion in the matter and no power to extend the time for making such payment. The duty of the Court to order the immediate execution of the appealed decision is ministerial and imperative.

Assailed orders, set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; FAILURE TO FILE SUPERSEDEAS BOND OR DEPOSIT THE CURRENT RENTS; IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF APPEALED DECISION; MINISTERIAL AND IMPERATIVE; CASE AT BAR. — When the supersedeas bond is not filed or the current rents are not deposited with the court as required by Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the duty of the court to order the immediate execution of the appealed decision is ministerial and imperative (De la Cruz vs Burgos, 28 SCRA 977). Hence, in the case at bar, it is patently grave abuse of discretion and officiousness on the part of respondent Judge who, while admitting in his questioned Order that the provisions of the cited Rule are mandatory, recalled the writ of execution because he "deems it a wiser policy and more sound exercise of discretion to liberalize its application in the interest of justice and equity." The law is explicit and is beyond respondent Judge’s discretion or notion of what would be a "wiser policy."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A MATTER OF RIGHT OF THE LESSOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO LOWER COURT’S DISCRETION; EXCEPTIONS. — Where the defendant-lessee in an eviction case did not file a supersedeas bond or did not make any monthly deposit of the rentals, the lessor is emitted as a matter of right to the immediate execution of the municipal or city court’s judgment for the restoration of possession and the payment of the accrued rentals or compensation for the use and occupation of the premises (De Pages and Vda. de Rodriguez v. Hon. Canonoy, 116 Phil. 898; Paulino Sr. v. Hon. Surtida, 109 Phil. 621; De Laureano v. Adil, 72 SCRA 148). In such cases, execution is mandatory (Arcega v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 164; Carbungco v. Amparo, 83 Phil. 638; Chieng Hung v. Tam Ten, 21 SCRA 211). The only exceptions are the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which prevented the defendant from posting the supersedeas bond or making the monthly deposit, or the occurrence of supervening events which brought about a material change in the situation of the parties and which would make the execution inequitable (Cunaan v. Rodas, 78 Phil. 800; Laurel v. Abalos, 30 SCRA 281; De Laureano v. Adil, supra).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MERE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL BOND IN LIEU OF MONTHLY RENTAL DEPOSIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY RECALL OF WRIT OF EXECUTION. — The mere offer of additional bond by respondent in lieu of the required monthly deposit of rentals does not justify the recall of the writ of execution already issued. For when the judgment in an ejectment case is appealed, the stay of the execution is conditioned upon the monthly payment to plaintiff or deposit in court of the accruing rentals or compensation for the property. The failure of the defendant-lessee to make cash deposits for current rentals calls for immediate execution of the judgment, even if the supersedeas bond filed covers both the back rents and current rents (Acibo v. Macadaeg, II SCRA 446) and the Court of First Instance has no discretion in the matter and no power to extend the time for making such payment (Lapuz v. CFI of Pampanga, 46 Phil. 77).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERSEDEAS BOND AND MONTHLY CASH DEPOSITS; COVERAGE DISTINGUISHED. — It has long been settled that the supersedeas bond answers only for the rents or damages down to the time of the perfection of the appeal and not for the future rents or damages arising during the appeal, which rents are guaranteed to be covered by the monthly cash deposits required by Sec. 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT BOND IN LIEU OF CASH DEPOSIT. — The Court of First Instance has no authority to accept a bond in lieu of cash deposit for future rents.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


This is a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus complaining of the Order dated October 1, 1980 as well as the Order dated December 1, 1980 of the Court of First Instance of Pasay, Branch XXXIX, as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, the first Order recalling the writ of execution issued on June 18, 1980 in Civil Case No. 7222-P, entitled "Philippine Holding Corporation v. Romulo Figueroa" and the second Order denying the motion for reconsideration filed by herein petitioner. Petitioner prays to compel respondent Judge to order immediate execution of the judgment of eviction and to issue the corresponding writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the purpose.

The Court hereby sets aside the two orders and grants the writ of mandamus prayed for, since the said orders were issued in violation of the specific and mandatory provisions of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

For a brief statement of the undisputed facts:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In a decision dated October 17, 1978 of the City Court of Pasay, Branch IV, respondent Romulo Figueroa was ordered evicted from the premises owned by petitioner corporation located at 1400 Roxas Boulevard corner Salud Street, Pasay City by virtue of the expiration of the contract of lease thereon between said respondent as lessee and herein petitioner as lessor. For unexplained reasons, petitioner did not receive a copy of the decision until after it filed, on January 15, 1979, a motion for the early decision of the case and City Judge Francisco Llamas issued an order that a copy of the decision be sent to petitioner’s counsel. Surprisingly also, respondent Figueroa received a copy of the decision only much later on March 5, 1979.

After respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the decision of eviction had been denied, the City Court issued the corresponding writ of execution on petitioner’s motion.

On May 4, 1979, respondent Figueroa filed a notice of appeal dated May 2, 1979 from the decision of the Pasay City Court and at the same time filed a supersedeas bond consisting of a first lien or mortgage executed in favor of petitioner over two parcels of land located at Agoo, La Union.

In the Court of First Instance, after respondent failed to deposit the monthly rentals that had fallen due since the perfection of the appeal, petitioner moved for execution on February 12, 1980. This was reiterated on May 13, 1980 and again on June 13, 1980. Finally, on June 18, 1980, respondent Judge granted the motion and ordered execution of the lower court’s decision. On July 23, 1980, respondent, on his own behalf, filed an ex-parte Motion to Recall Writ of Execution Pending Appeal. The following day, or on July 24, 1980, respondent Judge issued an order suspending the writ of execution and thereafter recalled the same on October 1, 1980, reasoning thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Court ordered the execution of the appealed decision on the ground that the defendant failed to pay or deposit the current monthly rental of the premises. Upon review of the motion to recall writ of execution, the Court noted that the defendant, to stay execution, offered real estate property the value of which, according to defendant, is more than sufficient to cover up the money judgment as well as current and future monthly rentals. On the firm and honest belief that this property is sufficient to pay the current monthly rentals, the defendant did not anymore pay the same in Court. The defendant is offering another parcel of land situated in Baguio City to answer for the current monthly rentals.

The Court, although aware of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 8, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court, deems it a wiser policy and a more sound exercise of discretion to liberalize its application in the interest of justice and equity."cralaw virtua1aw library

When petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed wherein petitioner submits that respondent judge’s Order dated October 1, 1980 recalling the writ of execution previously issued in the case and Order dated December 1, 1980 denying its motion for reconsideration were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner accordingly prays that mandamus issue to compel respondent Judge to perform his ministerial duty of ordering immediate execution of the lower court’s decision of eviction against respondent for non-payment of rentals falling due during respondent’s appeal.

Respondent Judge, while admitting in his questioned Order that the provisions of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court are mandatory, recalled the writ of execution because he "deems it a wiser policy and more sound exercise of discretion to liberalize its application in the interest of justice and equity." This is patently grave abuse of discretion and officiousness on the part of respondent Judge.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court mandatorily provides that in ejectment cases, "if judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond, approved by the municipal or city court and executed to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of First Instance and 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 found by the judgment of the municipal or city court to exist. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the 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, on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The law is explicit and is beyond respondent Judge’s discretion or notion of what would be a "wiser policy." In a case where the defendant in an eviction case did not file a supersedeas bond or, as in the case at bar, did not make any monthly deposit of the rentals, the lessor, like petitioner in the case at bar, is entitled as a matter of right to the immediate execution of the municipal or city court’s judgment for the restoration of possession and the payment of the accrued rentals or compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. 1 In such cases, execution is mandatory. 2 The only exceptions are the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which prevented the defendant from posting the supersedeas bond or making the monthly deposit, or the occurrence of supervening events which brought about a material change in the situation of the parties and which would make the execution inequitable 3 � none of which holds in the case at bar.

When the supersedeas bond is not filed or the current rents are not deposited with the court as required by the cited Rule, the duty of the court to order the immediate execution of the appealed decision is ministerial and imperative. 4

The mere offer of additional bond by respondent in lieu of the required monthly deposit of rentals does not justify the recall of the writ of execution already issued. For when the judgment in an ejectment case is appealed, the stay of the execution is conditioned upon the monthly payment to plaintiff or deposit in court of the accruing rentals or compensation for the property. The failure of the defendant-lessee to make cash deposits for current rentals calls for immediate execution of the judgment, even if the supersedeas bond filed covers both the back rents and current rents 5 and the Court of First Instance has no discretion in the matter and no power to extend the time for making such payment. 6 It has long been settled that the supersedeas bond answers only for the rents or damages down to the time of the perfection of the appeal and not for the future rents or damages arising during the appeal, which rents are guaranteed to be covered by the monthly cash deposits required by the Rule. The Court of First Instance has no authority to accept a bond in lieu of cash deposit for future rents. 7

ACCORDINGLY, the orders of respondent Judge dated October 1, 1980 and December 1, 1980 are hereby set aside and annulled. The writ of mandamus is likewise issued commanding respondent Judge to immediately issue upon receipt hereof the corresponding writ of execution. With costs against private respondents. This decision is immediately executory.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. De Pages and Vda. de Rodriguez v. Hon. Canonoy, 116 Phil. 898; Paulino Sr. v. Hon. Surtida, 109 Phil. 621; De Laureano v. Adil, 72 SCRA 148.

2. Arcega v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 164; Carbungco v. Amparo 83 Phil. 638; Chieng Hung v. Tam Ten, 21 SCRA 211.

3. Cunaan v. Rodas, 78 Phil. 800; Laurel v. Abalos, 30 SCRA 281; De Laureano v. Adil, supra.

4. De la Cruz v. Burgos, 28 SCRA 977.

5. Acibo v. Macadaeg, 11 SCRA 446.

6. Lapuz v. CFI of Pampanga, 46 Phil. 77.

7. Ysrael v. CA, 78 Phil. 831; Acibo v. Macadaeg, supra, citing Moran, 3 Comments on the Rules of Court, 300; 304; 305 (1963).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29956 May 5, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY v. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-27607 May 7, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN CUEVO

  • A.M. No. 1527-MJ May 13, 1981 - ANGEL IBABAO, JR. v. DAVID E. VILLA

  • A.M. No. 1906-MJ May 13, 1981 - JOSEPHINE LUCIO MANALO v. CLARITO DEMAALA

  • A.M. No. P-2387 May 13, 1981 - RE: AMADO T. RESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28694 May 13, 1981 - TELEPHONE ENGINEERING & SERVICE COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-49155 May 13, 1981 - REYNALDO RODIL v. SEGUNDO M. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-52016 May 13, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO DUERO

  • G.R. No. L-55972 May 13, 1981 - PHILIPPINE HOLDING CORPORATION v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-25707 May 14, 1981 - ANTONIO MARIÑAS v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI

  • A.M. No. 2030-MJ May 15, 1981 - TITO C. TOLEDO v. EMILIO STA. ROMANA

  • G.R. No. L-39523 May 15, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-44233 May 15, 1981 - JOSE LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56174 May 15, 1981 - TEODORO S. MAYUGA v. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-49807 May 15, 1981 - AUGUSTO D. APO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981 - BEATRIZ L. GONZALEZ v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA (BRANCH V), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45975 May 25, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981 - ANDRES GARCES, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26815 May 26, 1981 - ADOLFO L. SANTOS v. ABRAHAM SIBUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-42699 to L-42709 May 26, 1981 - HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49624-25 May 26, 1981 - VIOLETA VELASCO, ET AL. v. EUGENIO MA. MOSUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51905 May 26, 1981 - ATLAS FREE WORKERS UNION (AFWU) — PSSLU LOCAL v. CARMELO C. NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-53376 May 26, 1981 - FRANCISCO C. MOGUEIS, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55922-23 May 26, 1981 - RUDY J. DE LEON, ET AL. v. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-31926 May 27, 1981 - BUENO INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38383 May 27, 1981 - WILLELMO C. FORTUN v. RUFINO O. LABANG

  • G.R. No. L-40191 May 27, 1981 - ANGEL BALTAZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46468 May 27, 1981 - FRANCISCO SAURE v. PRUDENCIO S. PENTECOSTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47737 May 27, 1981 - HANIEL R. CASTRO v. JUAN Y. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-48978 May 27, 1981 - SEBASTIAN ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55048 May 27, 1981 - SUGA SOTTO YUVIENCO, ET AL. v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1604 May 29, 1981 - GUADALUPE ADAZA v. ROSELLER L. BARINAGA

  • A.M. No. (3167-v) P-2195 May 29, 1981 - PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO v. HERMINIA C. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-27361 May 29, 1981 - PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. DOCTORS’ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31057 & L-31137 May 29, 1981 - INSULAR LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31084 May 29, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WESTRIMUNDO TABAYOYONG

  • G.R. No. L-55939 May 29, 1981 - FLORIDA SARDINIA-LINCO v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-56590 May 29, 1981 - PERLA COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION