ROBERT FERRIOLS, BERNARD POLICARPIO, AND TEODORO N. VELASCO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 115 OF PASAY CITY, AND …

Ferriols versus Mendiola

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Robert Ferriols, Bernard Policarpio, and Teodoro Velasco against Judge Francisco Mendiola, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115, and against the private respondent Pazmel Realty and Development Corporation. The petitioners were the defendants in an ejectment case decided against them by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 45. They appealed to the Regional Trial Court, and while that appeal was pending, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for execution pending appeal on the sole ground that the defendants had failed to post a supersedeas bond. The petitioners came to the Supreme Court to stop that execution. The case matters because it teaches exactly when a supersedeas bond is required to stay an ejectment judgment, and what happens once the Regional Trial Court has ruled on the appeal.

Procedural History

The Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 45, rendered a decision in the ejectment case on 17 March 2014, finding for the plaintiff and ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises and to pay attorney's fees of 20,000 pesos. The private respondent filed a notice of appeal, and the case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115. There the private respondent moved for a writ of execution pending appeal, arguing that the appeal was not perfected because no supersedeas bond had been paid. The petitioners countered with a motion to fix the reasonable value of the property, expressing readiness to deposit 19,000 pesos for the use and occupation of the premises. On 05 August 2014, the Regional Trial Court granted the motion for execution pending appeal for failure to file the necessary supersedeas bond. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on 02 September 2014. On 29 September 2014, the petitioners filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, on 21 October 2014, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on the appeal, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision.

Facts

Pazmel Realty and Development Corporation sued the petitioners for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City. On 17 March 2014, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The dispositive portion ordered the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises and to pay attorney's fees of 20,000 pesos. It awarded no rentals in arrears and fixed no reasonable value for the use and occupation of the property.

The private respondent appealed, and the case went to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115. There the private respondent moved for execution pending appeal, insisting that the appeal was not perfected for want of a supersedeas bond. The petitioners moved to fix the reasonable value of the property, pointing out that the judgment awarded neither rentals nor any reasonable value for the use of the premises, and offered to deposit 19,000 pesos to cover use and occupation.

The trial court granted execution pending appeal on 05 August 2014 for failure to post a supersedeas bond, and denied reconsideration on 02 September 2014. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court. After the petition was filed, the Regional Trial Court decided the appeal itself on 21 October 2014, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal on the ground that the petitioners failed to post a supersedeas bond, when the ejectment judgment awarded no rentals in arrears and fixed no reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari was rendered moot by the Regional Trial Court's subsequent decision on the appeal affirming the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 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 an 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. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed xxx.

This is the provision that fixes the three conditions for staying immediate execution of an ejectment judgment, and the Court holds that the bond presupposes an award of rents or damages to secure.

Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. — The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.

This provision makes the Regional Trial Court's judgment on the appeal immediately executory, which is why the Court holds the petition moot.

Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 21. Appeal. — The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

This reinforces that once the Regional Trial Court decides the ejectment appeal, its decision is immediately executory.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in granting execution pending appeal. As a general rule, a judgment for the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory. To stay execution while the appeal is pending before the Regional Trial Court, the defendant must perfect his appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and periodically deposit the rentals falling due during the appeal. Failure to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for outright execution, and the court's duty in this respect is ministerial. But the Court recognized an exception: where the trial court made no findings as to any amount in arrears, damages, or costs against the defendant, no bond is necessary to stay execution. Here, the Metropolitan Trial Court's dispositive portion awarded no unpaid or back rentals that could serve as the basis for computing a supersedeas bond. The award of 20,000 pesos in attorney's fees is not back rentals within the purview of the law. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Aznar Brothers Realty Company versus Court of Appeals:

In the instant case, there was no need for the private respondents to file a supersedeas bond because the judgment of the MTCC did not award rentals in arrears or damages. The attorney's fees of P8,000 and the litigation expenses of P2,000 awarded in favor of the petitioner need not be covered by a bond, as these are not the damages contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The damages referred to therein are the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property which are generally measured by its fair rental value and cannot refer to other damages which are foreign to the enjoyment or material possession of the property. Neither were the private respondents obliged to deposit the rentals falling due during the pendency of the appeal in order to secure a stay of execution because the appealed judgment did not fix the reasonable rental or compensation for the use of the premises.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition had been rendered moot by the Regional Trial Court's decision of 21 October 2014 affirming the Metropolitan Trial Court. Once the Regional Trial Court renders judgment in its appellate jurisdiction, that judgment is immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70, without prejudice to a further appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Only the execution of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court's judgment pending appeal may be stayed by compliance with the requisites of Section 19, Rule 70. The Court found no plausible reason to grant the petition.

Doctrine

A judgment for the plaintiff in an ejectment case is immediately executory. To stay execution pending appeal before the Regional Trial Court, the defendant must perfect the appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and deposit the rentals falling due during the appeal. The duty of the court to order execution upon failure to comply is ministerial. However, where the judgment awards no rentals in arrears and fixes no reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises, no supersedeas bond is necessary, and an execution order premised on its absence is groundless. Attorney's fees and litigation expenses are not the damages contemplated by the rule, which refers to reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property measured by its fair rental value. Finally, once the Regional Trial Court renders its decision on the ejectment appeal, that decision is immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70, and a pending petition challenging an earlier execution order becomes moot.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed for being moot and academic, the Regional Trial Court having already affirmed the ejectment judgment on appeal.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no back rentals awarded means no supersedeas bond is required, and attorney's fees are not the damages the rule contemplates. Examiners use this case to test the exceptions to immediate execution in ejectment and the effect of the Regional Trial Court's judgment on appeal in summary procedure.