LEONORA DUEÑAS, IRENEO ENDAYA, HILDA PENILLA, JENELYN BAYRON AND LANIE MEMBERS: EVARESTO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. KEVIN NARCE VIVERO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH…

Dueñas versus Vivero

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Leonora Dueñas, Ireneo Endaya, Hilda Penilla, Jenelyn Bayron, and Lanie Evaresto against Judge Kevin Narce Vivero, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. The petitioners were defendants in an unlawful detainer case and lost before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. They appealed, but the trial judge granted the plaintiff's motion for a writ of execution pending appeal because the petitioners had failed to post a supersedeas bond and to pay the monthly rentals. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul that order, claiming grave abuse of discretion. The case matters because it settles a question every bar candidate must know cold: what exactly must a losing ejectment defendant do to stay immediate execution of the judgment while his appeal is pending, and does an exemption from docket fees excuse him from posting the supersedeas bond?

Procedural History

Private respondent Amelita De Leon filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Antipolo City. The trial court rendered judgment in her favor, ordering the defendants to vacate the property, to pay monthly rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. The petitioners filed a notice of appeal and an omnibus motion asking to be exempted from payment of appeal and docket fees, deposit for costs, and other lawful fees, and from posting an appeal bond. The trial court granted the exemption from lawful fees but expressly cautioned the defendants that they should post the required supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment.

Because no bond was posted and no rentals were paid, the private respondent moved before the Regional Trial Court for a writ of execution pending appeal. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion, and later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. A writ of execution and a notice to vacate were thereafter issued. The petitioners then went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asking that the orders granting execution pending appeal be annulled and set aside.

Facts

Amelita De Leon sued a large group of defendants, including the five petitioners, for unlawful detainer over a parcel of land in Antipolo City. On May 19, 2009, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities ruled in her favor. The court ordered the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the property and surrender its peaceful possession to the plaintiff. It also ordered each defendant to pay a monthly rental of 5,000 pesos from December 5, 2006, or from February 27, 2007 for those named in the exception, until the property is fully vacated, plus 20,000 pesos in attorney's fees and the costs of suit.

The petitioners appealed and simultaneously asked to be excused from paying appeal and docket fees and from posting an appeal bond. The trial court granted the exemption from lawful fees, finding the motion meritorious under Supreme Court Administrative Circular Number 35-2004. But in the same order, the court cautioned the defendants that they should post the required supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment.

On July 24, 2009, the private respondent moved for a writ of execution pending appeal. She attached certifications from the Offices of the Clerk of Court of both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, each stating that no supersedeas bond and no monthly rentals had been paid. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion on March 15, 2010, on the ground of failure to post the bond and pay the rentals, without prejudice to the merits of the pending appeal. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, and a writ of execution and notice to vacate followed. Hence the petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the motion for a writ of execution pending appeal.
• Whether or not the trial court's order exempting the petitioners from payment of docket and other lawful fees also exempted them from posting the supersedeas bond and from paying the monthly rentals.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, as amended, governs immediate execution in ejectment cases and 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 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.

This provision is the heart of the case: it makes execution the rule and identifies the three concurrent acts that alone can stay it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. The general rule in ejectment proceedings is that a decision in favor of the plaintiff is immediately executory, so that the plaintiff may reacquire possession at once and avoid further damage from the loss of the property. To stay immediate execution while the appeal is pending, three requisites must concur: the defendant perfects his appeal, he files a supersedeas bond, and he periodically deposits the rentals that become due during the pendency of the appeal. These requisites are mandatory and concurrent, so that if they are not complied with, execution issues as a matter of right. Here, the certifications of the Offices of the Clerk of Court of both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court established that no bond was posted and no rentals were paid. The respondent judge therefore correctly granted execution pending appeal.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the petitioners' reading of the June 16, 2009 order. That exemption covered only docket and other legal fees in filing the appeal as indigent litigants. The order was explicit in requiring the petitioners to post the necessary bond to stay execution. The Court stressed that a supersedeas bond in ejectment cases subsists as security for the defendant's liability to the plaintiff, securing the rents and damages adjudged in the appealed judgment. The bond and the monthly deposits are designed to ensure that the plaintiff is paid the back rentals or compensation for the use and occupation of the premises should the decision in his favor be affirmed. If no bond is filed and no deposit is made, the plaintiff is entitled to possession. To allow the defendant to remain without any security would make the plaintiff's claim for rentals illusory and ineffectual. Public policy, finally, dictates that ejectment cases be resolved with the least possible delay and that judgments in favor of the plaintiff be immediately executed.

Doctrine

Three rules a bar candidate should be able to write from memory. First, a judgment in an ejectment case in favor of the plaintiff is immediately executory, and execution issues upon motion as a matter of right. Second, to stay execution pending appeal, the defendant must comply with three mandatory and concurrent requisites: perfect the appeal, file a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the Municipal Trial Court, and deposit with the appellate court the rent due from time to time during the appeal. Third, an exemption from docket and other lawful fees granted to an indigent litigant does not dispense with the supersedeas bond, because the bond is not a fee but security for the plaintiff's rents and damages. All of this flows from Section 19 of Rule 70, which conditions the stay of execution on the filing of the bond and the periodic deposits.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, so the private respondent prevailed and the writ of execution pending appeal stood.

Remember This

Memorize the three concurrent requisites to stay execution in ejectment: perfected appeal, supersedeas bond, and periodic deposit of rentals, and remember that an exemption from docket fees is not an exemption from the bond. Examiners like to use this case in civil procedure and remedial law questions on execution pending appeal in ejectment, and in questions testing whether indigency excuses compliance with the supersedeas bond.