CIVIL PROCEDURE | B2015 CASES

Heirs of Justice JBL Reyes & Heirs of Dr. Edmundo Reyes v. CA

August 16, 2000 Pardo alycat

SUMMARY: An ejectment case was filed by the Heirs against Manila Builders, the lessee of their predecessors property. The MTC ruled in favor of the Heirs, and granted a motion for execution to eject Manila Builders from the property. The RTC dismissed Manila Builders appeal and denied their application for injunctive relief from the MTCs judgment. The CA restrained the enforcement of the writ of execution, and later set aside the decision of the MTC. The Heirs appealed to the SC. Pending such appeal, upon motion by Manila Builders, the CA granted a motion for execution of its own judgment, including appointing a sheriff to carry out the judgment. SC reversed. DOCTRINE: The CA has no authority to issue immediate execution pending appeal of its own decision. Discretionary execution under Rule 39 is allowed pending appeal of a judgment or final order of the trial court, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. A judgment of the CA cannot be executed pending appeal. Once final and executory, the judgment must be remanded to the lower court where a motion for its execution may be filed only after its entry. FACTS: Magulo yung facts, so I just outlined the events in chronological order. Read the
summary first para ma-gets nyo agad.

Justice JBL Reyes and Dr. Edmundo Reyes (brothers) executed a contract leasing a parcel of land along Taft Aveue to Manila Builders, subject to certain conditions. However, Manila Builders violated the conditions. And so, the Heirs of JBL Reyes and the Heirs of Dr. Edmundo Reyes (the Heirs) sent notice to Manila Builders terminating the lease and demanding that they vacate and surrender the premises. The Heirs filed with the MTC a complaint for unlawful detainer based on the breach of contract of lease. The MTC ruled in their favor. The Heirs filed with the MTC a motion for execution of the judgment of eviction.

Meanwhile, Manila Builders appealed to the RTC. However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to file an appeal memorandum on time. So, Manila Builders elevated the case to the CA. The MTC granted the Heirs motion for execution. The CA allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by Manila Builders. Simultaneously, Manila Builders filed with the RTC an action for annulment of the ejectment judgment, with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/ or preliminary injunction, but this was denied. Manila Builders filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus questioning the RTCs denial of its application for injunctive relief. The CA issued a resolution restraining the enforcement of the writ of execution. The RTC dismissed the action for annulment of judgment on the ground that Manila Builders remedy was appeal, which when withdrawn, was effectively abandoned. (6th bullet) The CA promulgated a decision setting aside the decision of the MTC. (3rd bullet) Manila Builders filed an urgent ex-parte motion for execution pending appeal. The Heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the CA with the SC, and an urgent motion for execution, with motion to defer consideration due to the pendency of their petition with the SC. The CA granted the motion for execution, and issued a resolution appointing a special sheriff to execute the decision. The Heirs were evicted from the premises and Manila Builders was restored to possession of the property.

ISSUE + RATIO: 1. WON there was a need for judicial rescission of the contract of lease before MMB may be compelled to move out of the leased premises NO. The contract provides that in the event of default or breach of any of the conditions of the contract, the lessor may, in his absolute discretion declare the contract cancelled and terminated. MMB violated the conditions of the contract: - to cover all buildings and improvements on the leased premises with insurance

CIVIL PROCEDURE | B2015 CASES

to maintain the leased premises and all the buildings and improvements thereon in a state of security and first class repair, in a clean and sanitary condition - to repair and restore, or reconstruct such damage on destroyed improvements - to secure the lessor's prior written consent before it may assign or transfer any of its rights under the contacts There is nothing wrong if the parties to a lease contract agree on certain mandatory provisions (such as the aforementioned conditions) concerning their respective rights and obligations. Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties. As long as such agreements are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order they shall have the force of law between them. The law does not prohibit parties from entering into agreement providing that a violation of the terms of the contract would cause its cancellation even without judicial intervention. This is what petitioners and respondent entered into. WON the CA correctly declared the Heirs of indirect contempt NO. The CA declared the Heirs guilty of indirect contempt of court because they implemented the writ of execution of the trial court despite the order of the court to elevate the entire original records, and proceeded to demolish the improvements on the property without authority of the CA. However, this was because the TRO issued by the CA had lapsed after 60 days. No more restraining order was in effect until the court decided the case on its merits. Hence, petitioners acted in good faith in the exercise of their proprietary rights. There was no willful disobedience to a lawful order. The Heirs were not guilty of contempt. 3. TOPICAL: WON the CA correctly immediately enforced its decision pending appeal NO. In the first place, the CA has no authority to issue immediate execution pending appeal of its own decision. Discretionary execution under Rule 39, Sec. 2 (a), is allowed pending appeal of a judgment or final order of the trial court, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. A judgment of the CA cannot be executed pending appeal. Once final and executory, the judgment must be remanded to the lower court, where a motion for its execution may be filed only after its entry. In the second place, even in discretionary executions, the same must be firmly founded upon good reasons. The court must state in a special order the "good reasons" justifying the issuance of the writ. The good reasons allowing execution pending appeal must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the injuries or 2.

damages to the adverse party if the decision is reversed. Jurisprudence teaches us what are "good reasons" that justify a premature execution of judgment (ex. the deterioration of commodities subject of litigation, or the deteriorating condition of a vessel) In this case, the good reasons given by the CA to support the discretionary execution of its decision are (1) that MMB would be deprived of income from its business endeavors; (2) that "it is of public knowledge" that the CA and the SC are clogged with cases and it may take some time before the decision in the case may attain its finality; and (3) that petitioners acted with bad faith and malice. None of the cited reasons is "good" enough. The assertion that "it is of public knowledge" that the SC is clogged with cases that may take time to decide mocks the integrity and derides the competence of this Court. Urgency resulting from years of delay in the disposal of a case is not a good reason for premature execution of the decision. In the third place, by the mere fact of the filing of the petition for review to the CA, the finality of the CAs decision was stayed, and there could be no entry of judgment therein, and, hence, no premature execution could be had. The CA adopted its resolution granting execution pending appeal on after the petition for review was already filed in the SC. It thereby encroached on the hallowed grounds of the Supreme Court. Worst of all, the CA has no authority to appoint a special sheriff. It appointed an employee of the mailing section, who was not even bonded as required by law. HELD: CA reversed, RTC reinstated.