BIENVENIDO ONCE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CARLOS Y. GONZALES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, BRANCH VI; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, AND JUANITO PEÑA, RE…

The city court of Iloilo City, in a decision dated April 29, 1976, ordered Bienvenido Once to vacate an apartment in a building owned
by Juanito Peña and to pay
a monthly rental of P290 until the premises have been vacated, plus P1,000 as attorney’s fees. 
It was not indicated in the decision when the payment of the monthly
rental should commence.  No back rentals
were adjudged (Civil Case No. 11312).

Bienvenido Once filed a motion for
reconsideration.  He alleged that he had
been occupying the apartment (one of the four doors of the said building made
of cement hollow blocks and wood, with galvanized iron roofing) since 1966;
that he was the only one singled out for ejectment;
that the commissioner’s report on the alleged dilapidated condition of the
building was not set for hearing; that he occupied the apartment as residence
and for use as a carinderia
which allegedly was his sole means of livelihood, and that he should be given a
preference to reoccupy the apartment after the completion of the repairs.

The city court denied the motion in its order of June 2, 1976.  Bienvenido Once
appealed.  He deposited in the city court
on June 17, 1976 P580 as
rentals for April and May, 1976, Official Receipt No. 4763496.  In the Court of First Instance, he deposited
P290 on July 16, 1976 as rental for June, 1976, Official Receipt No. 1257740;
P290 on August 11, 1976 as rental for July, 1976, Official Receipt No. 1977508,
and P290 on September 9, 1976, as rental for August, 1976, Official Receipt No.
198832.

Juanito Peña,
the owner of the apartment, filed in the Court of First Instance a motion dated
July 9, 1976 for immediate
execution of the city court’s judgment. 
He invoked, as grounds, Once’s alleged failure
to file a supersedeas bond and the supposed untenantable condition of the apartment.

Bienvenido Once, through his lawyer,
Marietta J. Homena­-Valencia, an employee of the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), opposed the motion for execution.  Once alleged that he had deposited the
current rentals; that the apartment occupied by him was not in danger of
collapsing; that the building was stable, as shown by the fact that the owner, Peña, and his family occupied the apartment adjoining the
door leased to Once; that, if repairs were needed, all the occupants of the
building should vacate it, and that the commissioner, who reported on the
condition of the building, was not competent to assess its tenantable condition
since he is not an engineer but a court interpreter.

Executive Judge Valerio V. Rovira granted the motion for execution in his terse order
of August 9, 1976, which
reads:

“It appearing that the defendant has not filed the supersedeas bond and considering the provisions of
section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, let a writ of execution issue to effect the ejectment of
the defendant from the premises.”

Bienvenido Once filed a motion for
reconsideration.  He reiterated his
contention that the execution was improper because he had deposited in court
the current rentals.  He cited the rule
that a supersedeas bond is not necessary in case the
tenant had deposited in court the rentals due (Mitschiener
vs. Barrios, 76 Phil. 55; Bagtas vs. Tan, 93 Phil.
804).

The lower court denied the motion.  It issued a writ of execution dated September 21, 1976.  Bienvenido Once
filed a motion for suspension of the execution. 
He offered to file a supersedeas bond.  He stressed that he had occupied the apart­ment
for ten years and that his ejection was in contravention of Presidential Decree
No. 20.  The motion was denied.

On October 14, 1976
Bienvenido Once, through three CLAO lawyers, filed in
this Court the instant special civil actions
of certiorari and prohibition in order to set aside the order and writ
of execution.  A temporary restraining
order was issued by this Court but before it could be implemented Bienvenido Once was constrained to vacate the apartment in
litigation.

The issue is whether the lower court erred in ordering execution
of the city court’s judgment pending appeal.

We hold that the lower court committed a patent error in ordering
execution of the city court’s judgment on the ground that Bienvenido
Once did not file a supersedeas bond.  No such bond was necessary because no back
rentals were adjudged in the city court’s judgment.  The attorney’s fees of P1,000
need not be covered by a supersedeas bond.  (De Laureano
vs. Adil, L-43345, July 29, 1976, 72 SCRA 148, 155).

Once’s timely deposit of the rentals
for April, May, June, July and August, 1976
stayed the execution of the judgment pending appeal.  In such a
situation, no supersedeas bond was required to stay execution of the city court’s
judgment.  (Sison
vs. Bayona, 109 Phil. 557, 561).

Consequently, the order of execution was groundless.  It was not justified under section 8, Rule 70
of the Rules of Court.  Section 8
requires a supersedeas bond only if there are accrued
rentals in arrears.  It dispenses with
that bond if the defeated tenant deposits in court the rentals due from time to
time.  The execution proceeding already
mentioned is void.

It may be noted that according to Once’s
manifestation of March 22, 1977, the lower court in its decision of February 5,
1977 reversed the city court’s judgment and ordered that Once be allowed to
reoccupy the leased premises.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s orders of August 9 and September 14, 1976 are set aside with
costs against respondent Peña.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., and
Martin, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., no part.