SIERRA GRANDE REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIA ROSARIO B. RAGASA, CHAIRPERSON, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY, BRANCH 108,…

Sierra Grande Realty Corporation versus Ragasa

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari directly filed with the Supreme Court by Sierra Grande Realty Corporation against Presiding Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108. Sierra Grande sought to annul two orders of Judge Ragasa denying its motion for execution pending appeal in an unlawful detainer case. The case matters because it clarifies the mandatory nature of immediate execution in ejectment cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, and it distinguishes that mandatory execution from discretionary execution pending appeal under the general rules.

Procedural History

Sierra Grande filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City. The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of Sierra Grande, ordering the private respondents to vacate the property and pay attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision in toto. Sierra Grande then filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which Judge Ragasa denied in an Order dated October 29, 2014. Sierra Grande moved for reconsideration, but this was denied in an Order dated April 8, 2015. Sierra Grande then directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion to Judge Ragasa.

Facts

Sierra Grande is the registered owner of a property in Pasay City. The property was purchased in 1975 by one of its incorporators to house his ailing mother. The incorporator's brothers were allowed to stay temporarily, and in 1984, Elmer Tan and Nancy Tan were also allowed to occupy the property. When the incorporator passed away in 1985, the occupants conspired with others to simulate contracts to sell and deeds of absolute sale over portions of the property. In a prior case, the Supreme Court invalidated these contracts and deeds on the ground of fraud, and that decision became final and executory.

On September 28, 2012, Sierra Grande sent a letter demanding that the private respondents vacate the property. When they refused, Sierra Grande filed the unlawful detainer complaint. The private respondents denied receiving the demand and claimed they had a right to the property because they redeemed it from a mortgage. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for Sierra Grande, and the Regional Trial Court affirmed. When Sierra Grande moved for execution pending appeal, Judge Ragasa denied the motion, reasoning that it would be prudent to wait for the final resolution of the petition for review pending with the Court of Appeals.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Sierra Grande's motion for execution pending appeal in an unlawful detainer case.
• Whether or not Sierra Grande had the capacity to sue and whether its general manager had authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Whether or not the direct resort to the Supreme Court was proper despite the principle of hierarchy of courts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

Sec. 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 Big. 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 provision governs the appeal in summary procedure cases and mandates immediate execution of the Regional Trial Court's decision.

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. (10a)

This provision reinforces the immediately executory nature of judgments in ejectment cases even when a further appeal is taken.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Petition for Certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision is the basis for the petition and defines the standard of grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the procedural issues, the Court held that Sierra Grande had the capacity to sue. Although its certificate of registration had been revoked, Section 122 of the Corporation Code allowed it three years to prosecute suits in its name. The petition was filed within that period. The Court also held that the general manager could sign the verification and certification against forum shopping without a board resolution, citing the exception recognized in Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation. Furthermore, a special power of attorney executed by the majority of the directors clothed the general manager with authority to represent the corporation.

On the issue of direct resort, the Court found that the case fell under the exception to the hierarchy of courts based on the time element. Ejectment cases are summary in nature and should be resolved with expediency. The issue raised was also a pure question of law.

On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that Judge Ragasa committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that in ejectment cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal is a clear ministerial duty on the part of the Regional Trial Court. The use of the word "shall" in both Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court underscores the mandatory character of the rule. The Court quoted the instructive case of ALPA-PCM, Incorporated versus Bulasao:

The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has decreed the immediately executory nature of decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, involving cases falling under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. It requires no further justification or even "good reasons" for the RTC to authorize execution, even if an appeal has already been filed before the CA. Indeed, the provision does not even require a bond to be filed by the prevailing party to allow execution to proceed. The rationale for this is the objective of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases governed by it.

The Court distinguished the case of Eudela versus Court of Appeals, which involved execution pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39 in an action for injunction, specific performance, and damages. That case did not apply to unlawful detainer cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

Doctrine

In ejectment cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is immediately executory, and the issuance of the writ of execution is a ministerial duty of the court. The word "shall" in Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court makes execution mandatory, and no "good reasons" need be shown. A judge who denies execution pending appeal in such a case commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and annulled and set aside the Orders dated October 29, 2014 and April 8, 2015 issued by Judge Ragasa.

Remember This

Memorize this rule: in unlawful detainer cases, the Regional Trial Court's decision is immediately executory, and execution is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary act. Examiners like to test this case to distinguish mandatory execution in ejectment cases from discretionary execution pending appeal under the general rules, and to test the exceptions to the hierarchy of courts.