Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 176282 : July 09, 2007] VICTORIA FERNANDO VS. SPS. REGINALDO LIM AND ASUNCION LIM:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated 09 July 2007:

G.R. No. 176282 - Victoria Fernando vs. Sps. Reginaldo Lim and Asuncion Lim


In the Resolution dated February 28, 2007, the Court required respondents to comment on the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Victoria Fernando and issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the lower courts from implementing the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals until further orders.

Respondents filed a Motion to Lift the TRO or to Require Petitioner to make the Required Monthly Deposit arguing that petitioner posted the cash bond of P100,000.00 on March 13, 2007 or one day beyond the five day period within which to file it as a condition for the issuance of the TRO but made it appear to be timely filed by falsely stating that counsel received the aforesaid Court Resolution on March 8, 2007 when in fact, counsel received it on March 7, 2007. In addition respondents allege that petitioner has not paid or deposited the monthly rentals for the use and occupation of the subject premises in violation of section 19, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. Respondents thus pray that the TRO be lifted and in the alternative, petitioner be required to effect payment of monthly rentals.

In her Comment, petitioner avers that her counsel did not make a false statement as to the date of receipt of the Court Resolution and without intention to mislead the Court. Allegedly, counsel relied on the notation of the messenger that said Resolution was received on March 8, 2007 and thus, acted in accordance therewith. As to the non-payment of monthly rentals, petitioner asserts that the TRO was issued for the purpose of maintaning the status quo pending resolution of the petition; that on appeal to a higher court, there is no requirement of posting supersedeas bond or deposit of monthly rentals inasmuch as the judgment of the trial court is immediately executory; and that execution or non-execution of the same is not the burden of the petitioner.

The Court does not agree with the petitioner. Section 19, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court clearly provides:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay 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 determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. (Emphasis supplied).

Before the filing of the ejectment case in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16 (MTC), petitioner claims that she is paying a monthly rental of P10,932. 60 inclusive of VAT less withholding tax. The MTC ordered the petitioner to pay to respondents the increased amount of P25,000.00 as monthly rental. On appeal, the RTC reduced the same to P15,000.00 which was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner raises this as one of the issues arguing that the CA failed to cite a factual or legal basis to award said payment of monthly rental.

Considering that petitioner avers that she is a lessee of the subject property and that she does not dispute that, after posting of a supersedeas bond, she has not been paying monthly rentals, neither the P10,932.60, the P25,000.00 or the P15,000.00 adjudged amount, and considering further that respondents opted to require petitioner to deposit the monthly rentals instead of causing the execution of the MTC judgment, justice dictates that petitioner pay the monthly rentals of P10,932.60 pending resolution of the case reckoned from date of receipt by petitioner of the MTC decision.

Foregoing considered, the Court resolves to:

1. DENY the Motion to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order;
2. GRANT the prayer of the respondents for petitioner to pay P10,932.60 monthly rentals from date of receipt by petitioner of the MTC decision.

SO ORDERED.