ANDRES DY AND GLORIA DY, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE ZEUS G. ABROGAR, HONORABLE FELICIDAD NAVARRIO-QUIAMBAO, SHERIFF ERNESTO ADAN, CLERK OF COURT …

Andres Dy versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Andres Dy and Gloria Dy against the Court of Appeals, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, the presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, and the sheriff who carried out the writ, arising from an ejectment case decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The petitioners were thrown out of the leased premises at midnight, before a copy of the Regional Trial Court judgment affirming their eviction had ever been served on them. The case matters because it fixes a due process floor beneath the summary procedure: even a judgment declared immediately executory cannot be executed until the losing party has been served with notice of it, and the motion for execution must carry proof of that service.

Procedural History

The private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, which rendered judgment in his favor, ordering the petitioners and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises, to surrender possession peacefully, to pay monthly rentals from June 1, 1989 until actual vacation, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which affirmed the decision in its entirety and, treating the case as governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, declared the decision immediately executory and remanded the records for immediate execution.

The records were promptly remanded. The private respondent filed an ex parte motion for immediate execution, which the inferior court granted on the very day it was filed. The next day, at about half past eleven in the evening, the sheriff, assisted by policemen and other persons, ejected the petitioners, throwing their belongings into the street. The petitioners moved to quash and recall the writ on the ground that they had not been served a copy of the Regional Trial Court decision; the motion was denied. They received a copy of the decision on March 6, 1990, and the following day filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence this petition to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On July 21, 1982, the private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment against the petitioners in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. Summons required the petitioners to answer within ten days from notice under the Rules on Summary Procedure. They answered, the private respondent replied, and at the preliminary conference the issues were defined and the parties were directed to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence with their position papers.

On November 9, 1989, the inferior court rendered judgment for the private respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises at Zamora Street corner Makati Avenue, Poblacion, Makati, to surrender possession, to pay fifteen thousand pesos monthly rentals from June 1, 1989 until actual vacation, and to pay one thousand pesos as attorney's fees plus costs. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which on February 22, 1990 affirmed the decision in its entirety and ordered it immediately executory under the Rule on Summary Procedure, remanding the records for immediate execution.

On February 23, 1990, the private respondent filed an ex parte motion for immediate execution in the inferior court, which granted it the same day. At half past eleven in the evening of the following day, the sheriff, assisted by policemen and other persons, ejected the petitioners, threw their belongings into the street, and turned the premises over to the private respondent. The petitioners had not yet received a copy of the Regional Trial Court decision; they received it only on March 6, 1990.

Issues

• Whether or not a judgment of the Regional Trial Court in a case governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure may be immediately executed before a copy of that judgment has been served on the losing party.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals may substitute for the appeal that the petitioners failed to file within the reglementary period.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

Execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action or proceeding.

This is the anchor of the ruling: execution presupposes a final judgment, and finality can only be measured from service of a copy on the parties.

Section 18 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, as quoted in the decision, provides:

SEC. 18. Appeal. - The judgment or order, including that rendered under Section 5 hereof, shall be appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same on the basis of the records in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in such civil cases shall be immediately executory.

The phrase "immediately executory" is what the respondents invoked, and the Court construes it against the backdrop of due process.

Section 19 of the same Rules provides:

The regular procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court shall apply to special cases herein provided for in a suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent herewith.

This is the bridge that brings the Rules of Court, including the notice requirements, into summary procedure.

Section 11 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 11. Return of case. - Ten (10) days after entry of judgment, the clerk shall return the records of the case to the lower court, unless notice is given of intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, in which event the mittimus shall be stayed. Upon returning the case, the clerk shall transmit to the court below a certified copy of the judgment for execution. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the lower court to notify the parties within five (5) days of the receipt by him of the records of a case from the appellate court.

This shows that even in the regular procedure, the return of records for execution is keyed to entry of judgment, which in turn follows service of notice on the parties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative: the judgment may not be immediately executed before service on the losing party. The Court reasoned that execution issues as a matter of right only if no appeal was interposed within the reglementary period, and the lapse of that period can only be determined from proof of service of the judgment on the parties. Under Section 2 of Rule 39, execution pending appeal requires a motion by the prevailing party, good reasons, and notice to the adverse party; a judgment cannot even be considered pending appeal unless notice of it has been served on the losing party. Applying these rules suppletorily to summary procedure, the Court held that while an ex parte motion for a writ of execution may be filed, the motion must be supported by proof of service of the judgment on the losing party. Otherwise, the losing party would be left without any remedy against a judgment unsupported by evidence or law, and the appellate court would be deprived of the power to stay the hand of the inferior court. The basic requirements of due process demand prior notice.

On the second issue, the Court ruled against the petitioners. Although their cause was meritorious, they failed to appeal the Regional Trial Court judgment within the reglementary period counted from notice on March 6, 1990. A petition for certiorari cannot take the place of an appeal, and the judgment having lapsed into finality, no further relief could be afforded them. The judgment of the appellate court was therefore upheld on this account.

Doctrine

In a civil case decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the immediate execution of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court may not be effected unless prior notice of the judgment or order has been served on the losing party, and proof of such service accompanies the motion for execution. This notice is an essential requirement of due process; without it, the entire proceedings leading to execution may be nullified and set aside. The rule rests on Section 1 of Rule 39, which allows execution only upon a judgment that finally disposes of the action, read together with the suppletory application of the Rules of Court under Section 19 of the Rules on Summary Procedure. Finally, the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal; once the judgment lapses into finality, relief is foreclosed.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was upheld, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: immediate execution under the Rules on Summary Procedure requires prior service of the judgment on the losing party and proof of that service attached to the motion for execution. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of summary procedure, due process, and the rule that certiorari cannot substitute for an appeal lost through the petitioner's own failure to file it on time.