Facts:

The case revolves around Air Transportation Office (ATO) as the petitioner and Bernie G. Miaque as the respondent. The dispute began in May 2001 when ATO initiated an unlawful detainer complaint against Miaque in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, designated as Civil Case No. 01 (38). ATO sought possession of several premises, notably an 800-square meter Refreshment Parlor and a 310-square meter Restaurant/Gift Shop, both located at the Iloilo Airport, along with the collection of approximately P1,296,103.10 in unpaid rental and concession fees. On May 27, 2002, the MTCC ruled in favor of ATO, ordering Miaque to vacate the premises and pay the assessed dues totaling approximately P467,397.68.

Miaque appealed the MTCC's decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, which affirmed the MTCC's ruling on June 7, 2003. Miaque's further petition to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79439, was also dismissed on April 2

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The Air Transportation Office (ATO) initiated legal proceedings against Bernie G. Miaque for unlawful detainer of various airport areas in Iloilo City, specifically:
• An 800‑square meter Refreshment Parlor fronting the New Terminal Building
• A 310‑square meter Restaurant/Gift Shop inside the Iloilo Airport Terminal (later reduced to 183 square meters)
• Additional areas used for the Porterage Service within the Iloilo Airport
• The ATO also demanded payment of outstanding rental and concessionaire privilege fees, which, as of certain dates, amounted to substantial sums.

Proceedings in the Lower Courts

• Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City
• The ATO filed Civil Case No. 01 (38) in May 2001 seeking ejectment and which detailed orders for Miaque to vacate the premises and pay accrued fees.
• On May 27, 2002, the MTCC rendered a decision ordering Miaque to vacate the premises and to pay the calculated fees with interests and additional charges.
• Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City
• Miaque appealed the MTCC decision in Civil Case No. 02‑27292.
• On June 7, 2003, the RTC affirmed the MTCC’s decision; Miaque’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
• Court of Appeals (CA)
• In CA-G.R. SP No. 79439, Miaque petitioned for review of the RTC decision (filed September 25, 2003).
• The CA dismissed his petition on April 29, 2005 and denied his motion for reconsideration on January 5, 2006.
• Execution Proceedings
• A temporary restraining order (TRO) was initially issued by the CA on February 27, 2004, requiring Miaque to post a bond.
• Following the expiration of the TRO, the ATO filed an urgent motion under Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was granted by the RTC on August 2, 2004.
• Despite denied motions for reconsideration from Miaque, the RTC issued a writ of execution on August 16, 2004.
• The CA, through a Resolution dated June 14, 2005, ordered the sheriffs to desist from enforcing the RTC decisions pending the outcome of pending appeals.
• However, before full implementation of the CA order, the sheriffs executed portions of the writ on June 15, 2005, resulting in partial delivery of possession of the subject premises, which Miaque later temporarily regained.

Subsequent Litigation in the Court of Appeals

• Miaque filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603) on March 28, 2006 challenging the RTC’s revived writ of execution (Order dated March 20, 2006).
• In response, the CA, through two separate instruments:
• Issued a TRO on March 29, 2006, effective for 60 days, which halted further execution.
• On May 30, 2006, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the execution of the RTC decisions, based on Miaque’s assertion of a legal right to remain in possession pending his ejection by a valid writ of execution.
• The ATO, as petitioner in the present case, asserted that:
• The CA had gravely abused its discretion by issuing both the TRO and the preliminary injunction.
• The issuance of a TRO cannot restrain an already partially implemented writ.
• Miaque’s juxtaposition of similar issues in different appeals constituted forum shopping.
• The subject premises are part of public utility infrastructure, which should be free from a TRO under Presidential Decree No. 1818.
• Miaque’s deposit claim (novating the MTCC decision) lacks merit considering the ATO’s pursuit of the execution order.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

• The petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the ATO challenging the CA’s issuance of the TRO and the preliminary injunction.
• The core contention raised was whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by enjoining the immediate execution of the RTC’s judgment.
• The Supreme Court focused on the implications of Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court regarding the immediate executory character of RTC decisions in ejectment cases.
• The court also examined past jurisprudence and legal provisions relating to discretionary versus ministerial issuance of execution orders.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing a TRO and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction that enjoined the execution of the RTC’s judgment.

• Does the issuance of a TRO against an already partially implemented execution order contravene established legal principles?
• Is it proper to enjoin the execution of a judgment that is immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70 despite the filing of an appeal?
• Whether the RTC acted within its jurisdiction by reviving and issuing the writs of execution under Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case once the appeal was perfected.
• Whether the legal right claimed by Miaque to retain possession of the premises pending formal ejection is sufficiently proven and supported by jurisprudence.
• Whether the alleged forum shopping by Miaque, through raising identical issues in separate appeals, merits a dismissal or adverse judicial treatment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)