HANS GALEWSKY AND FRED REDFERN, PETITIONERS, VS. RAMON DE LA RAMA AND EULALIO GARCIA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASAY BRANCH, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner against the
respondents on the ground that the respondent Judge Eulalio Garcia has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
ordering, upon motion of the other respondent, to deposit the monthly rents of
P450 found to be due from the petitioner to said respondent, during the pendency
of the appeal taken by the petitioners from the judgment of the justice of the
peace of Pasay (Rizal City) to the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

The order of the respondent judge which, according to the petitioners, was
entered by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion, reads as follows:

“Acting upon the motion for immediate execution, dated July 15, 1947, filed
by counsel for the plaintiff; upon the motion ex-parte for preliminary
attachment, dated July 16, 1947, filed by counsel for the plaintiff and upon the
motion for extension of time to deposit the rents due, dated July 15, 1947,
filed by counsel for the defendants;

“The Court, in the interests of justice and equity, hereby grants the
defendants, a non-extendible period of five (5) days, counted from tomorrow,
July 22, 1947, within which to deposit with the Clerk of Court of Rizal, all of
the rents due in this case.

“The motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in this case
is hereby denied.

‘It is so ordered.'”

The petitioners now contend that the requirement that the monthly rental of
P450 found by the justice of the peace of Pasay (now Rizal City) to be due from
the petitioners-defendants to the respondent-plaintiff, and which the respondent
judge ordered the petitioners to deposit during the pendency of the appeal, is
erroneous or contrary to the provision of section 2 of Act No. 689, as amended
by Republic Act No. 66, and therefore the respondent judge acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the monthly
deposit of said amount.

There is no question that the justice of the peace of Pasay (Rizal City) had
jurisdiction to try and decide the action of illegal detainer filed by the
respondent Ramon de la Rama against the petitioners, and did not act in excess
thereof or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment in the case. The
question whether or not the judgment of the said justice of the peace which
sentenced die petitioners to pay the said amount of monthly rent to the said
respondent is in accordance with the law of the case, does not involve question
of jurisdiction or discretion of said justice of the peace.

Appellate court of first instance has the ministerial duty to order the
execution of the judgment of the inferior court which has jurisdiction to render
it notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, should defendant fail to pay
plaintiff or the court the amount of monthly rent found to be due by the court
a quo to appellee from appellant under said section 8, Rule 72. The Court
of First Instance of Rizai presided over by the respondent judge had no power to
inquire into the merit of the judgment of the inferior court which adjudicated
the amount of monthly rental due from defendants to plaintiff, before ordering
the execution of said judgment upon the appellants’ failure to make the payment
or deposit required by law. Only upon deciding the appealed case on the merits
may the appellate court pass upon whether or not the inferior court erred in not
applying the provision of section 2, Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No.
66.

In view of all the foregoing, it is evident that the respondent judge did not
act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
rendering the order quoted above, of which the petitioners complain; the
respondent judge did not do but comply with the ministerial duty of the court to
order the execution of the inferior court’s judgment upon failure of the
defendants-appellants to make said deposit.

Therefore the petition is denied with costs against the
petitioners.

Moran, C.J., Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ.,
concur.