Facts:

The case at hand is Angel Jose Realty Corp. vs. Felix Galao et al., heard by the First Division of the Supreme Court under G.R. No. L-45 and decided on February 26, 1946. It centers on a contempt proceeding that stemmed from civil case No. A-47 in the Municipal Court of Manila. The respondents in the case are Felix Galao along with Bernardina Galao and Fong Lay, who are the defendants and also the appellants. The underlying problem began on April 25, 1945, when the Municipal Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Angel Jose Realty Corp., ordering the defendants to pay rent for the premises they occupied and to vacate said premises. The defendants subsequently filed an appeal within the legally prescribed period. On May 16, 1945, the plaintiff asked the Municipal Court for a writ of execution, which was granted ex parte without notice to the appellants. On May 25, 1945, the court suspended the execution since the rents for the months of March to May had been deposited with the co

...

Facts:

Background of the Civil Case

• The controversy originates from a civil case (No. A-47) handled by the Municipal Court of Manila and a previous appeal (G.R. No. L-30, 75 Phil., 109).
• Angel Jose Realty Corp. (plaintiff and appellee) initiated proceedings against the defendants, who had been ordered to pay rent and vacate the premises under a rendered decision on April 25, 1945.
• The defendants (Bernardina Galao and Fong Lay) appealed the decision within the prescribed period.

Events Leading to the Issuance of the Writ of Execution

• On May 16, 1945, the plaintiff filed an ex parte petition seeking the issuance of a writ of execution for the judgment, which was granted by the Municipal Court without prior notice to the defendants.
• Recognizing that the complaint primarily sought the payment of rent, the court on May 25, 1945, suspended the initial execution since the rents for March to May 1945 had already been deposited.
• Despite the deposit, the plaintiff filed a subsequent petition on May 29, 1945 (after 15 days since the appeal was perfected) for an alias writ of execution, again without notifying the defendants.

Wrongful Execution and Immediate Aftermath

• The Municipal Court of Manila, disregarding the fact that the May rents were deposited, issued the alias writ which led to the actual execution of the order.
• The Sheriff of Manila, acting on the writ, ejected the appellants from the premises without affording them the opportunity to file the required supersedeas bond of P200, as noted at the bottom of the writ.
• Left without shelter, the appellants returned shortly after the ejection and took temporary possession of the premises by forcibly breaking the padlock.

Submission of the Supersedeas Bond and Court Hearing

• On May 30, 1945—a legal holiday—the appellants were unable to deposit the supersedeas bond on time, which was instead filed on May 31, 1945.
• Before approving the bond, the Municipal Court set a hearing with due notice to both parties.
• Upon review, the Municipal Court declared the charge of contempt for reoccupying the premises untenable, given that the defendants were not afforded the chance to deposit the bond prior to their ejection.

Contempt Proceedings and Error Assignments

• Despite the Municipal Court’s declaration, the plaintiff proceeded to file written charges of contempt in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 70380).
• The Court of First Instance convicted the appellants, sentencing each to five days of imprisonment and imposing a P50 fine.
• In the appeal, the defendants raised four error assignments concerning jurisdiction, the Municipal Court's failure to act on the charge, the defense of double jeopardy, and the validity of the contempt finding, which the appellate court ultimately narrowed to the sole issue of whether the defendants committed contempt of court.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Authority

• Did the lower court have the original or appellate jurisdiction to try the case for contempt, particularly after the Municipal Court lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of the appeal?
• What effect, if any, does the loss of jurisdiction have on the validity of the contempt proceedings?

Legality of the Writ of Execution

• Was the writ of execution lawfully issued given that the rents for May 1945 had already been deposited with the court?
• Was proper notice given to the defendants prior to the issuance of the writ, as required by law (Section 8, Rule 72, Rules of Court)?

Validity of the Contempt Charge

• Can the defendants be held in contempt for reoccupying the premises if the underlying writ of execution was void?
• Do the procedural irregularities (lack of notice and failure to allow the filing of the supersedeas bond) invalidate the order that supposedly was violated?

Impact of Error Assignments Raised by the Defendants

• How do the error assignments regarding jurisdiction, failure of the Municipal Court to act, defense of double jeopardy, and no contempt committed affect the outcome of the case?
• Is there any merit in the argument that the defendants’ actions did not constitute contempt due to the absence of a lawful court order?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)