7/28/2019 [Civil Procedure] [Apacible] [Heirs of Jbl Reyes v. CA]

1/2

CIVIL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASES

Heirs of Justice JBL Reyes &

Heirs of Dr. Edmundo Reyes v. CAAugust 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 CArestrained 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 judgmentof 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 thesummary first para ma-gets nyo agad.

Justice JBL Reyes and Dr. Edmundo Reyes (brothers) executed acontract leasing a parcel of land along Taft Aveue to Manila Builders,

subject to certain conditions.

However, Manila Builders violated the conditions. And so, the Heirsof 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 detainerbased 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 judgmentof eviction.

Meanwhile, Manila Builders appealed to the RTC. However, theappeal was dismissed for failure to file an appeal memorandum ontime. 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 ManilaBuilders. Simultaneously, Manila Builders filed with the RTC anaction 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 andmandamus questioning the RTCs denial of its application forinjunctive relief.

The CA issued a resolution restraining the enforcement of the writof execution.

The RTC dismissed the action for annulment of judgment on theground 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 executionpending appeal.

The Heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari the decision of theCA with the SC, and an urgent motion for execution, with motion to

defer consideration due to the pendency of their petition with theSC.

The CA granted the motion for execution, and issued a resolutionappointing a special sheriff to execute the decision.

The Heirs were evicted from the premises and Manila Builders wasrestored to possession of the property.

ISSUE + RATIO:

1. WON there was a need for judicial rescission of the contract of leasebefore MMB may be compelled to move out of the leased premises

NO. The contract provides that in the event of default or breach ofany 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 premiseswith insurance

7/28/2019 [Civil Procedure] [Apacible] [Heirs of Jbl Reyes v. CA]

2/2

CIVIL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASES

- to maintain the leased premises and all the buildings andimprovements 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 destroyedimprovements

- to secure the lessor's prior written consent before it may assignor 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 partiesfrom 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.

2. WON the CA correctly declared the Heirs of indirect contemptNO. 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 60days. 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. TheHeirs were not guilty of contempt.

3. TOPICAL: WON the CA correctly immediately enforced its decisionpending 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 ofthe 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 specialorder the "good reasons" justifying the issuance of the writ. The good

reasons allowing execution pending appeal must constitute superiorcircumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the injuries or

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 petitionersacted 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 couldbe 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.