Case Digest (G.R. No. 136751)
Facts:
This is Natividad Candido and Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc. v. Ricardo Camacho and Marilou Hernandez, G.R. No. 136751, January 15, 2002, First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.In November 1994, Natividad Candido, as representative of Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc. (petitioners), filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 1701) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balanga, Bataan against respondents Ricardo Camacho and Marilou Hernandez, alleging exclusion from physical possession on July 21, 1994 when respondents padlocked and took control of the pawnshop stall. After answers were filed, the case was submitted on the pleadings in December 1994. Respondents later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the controversy was intracorporate and proper before the SEC; the MTC judge denied petitioners’ motion to set the case for hearing the motion to dismiss on March 8, 1995.
On April 16, 1997, the MTC rendered judgment for petitioners ordering defendants to vacate and restore possession and awarding possession-related recovery including an itemized valuation of pawned articles and operating capital at P2,000,000 and monthly rentals of P8,000 from July 21, 1994. Petitioners moved for immediate execution on May 13, 1997. Respondents filed a notice of appeal with the MTC on May 9, 1997 but did not post any supersedeas bond; they also opposed execution arguing the notice of appeal stayed execution. On June 5, 1997 the MTC granted execution for respondents’ failure to post a supersedeas bond.
Meanwhile, Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc. and a third party filed a separate petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May 30, 1997 seeking accounting and injunctive relief against Candido. On June 9, 1997 respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga (Civil Case No. 6651) seeking to annul both the MTC decision and the order granting execution; on June 30, 1997 the RTC issued a preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of the MTC writ of execution.
Petitioners then filed a combined petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (docketed C.A. G.R. No. 44633) challenging the RTC preliminary injunction on grounds that respondents’ certiorari petition was improper because they already had an appeal available, that certiorari could not substitute for an appeal, and that respondents were forum-shopping. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ petition on March 25, 1998 for two principal reasons: (1) petitioners failed to move for reconsideration of the RTC injunction; and (2) the RTC did not abuse its discretion because the MTC had improperly included P2,000,000 as damages (which, under ejectment jurisprudence, should be limited to fair rental value), and thus respondents were not required to post a supersedeas bond ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals fatal to the prosecution of a petition for certiorari where the issues are essentially legal and have been fully heard?
- Does the improper inclusion of a P2,000,000 valuation as “damages” in an MTC ejectment judgment relieve respondents of the obligation to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution as to the unpaid rentals?
- Did respondents engage in forum-shopping by filing a notice of appeal with the MTC and subsequently filing a petition for certiorari in the RTC (and invoking t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)