G.R. No. 100626 - City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the City of Manila against the private respondent, Army and Navy Club, Inc. (ANC), alleging violation of a lease agreement over a parcel of land on Roxas Boulevard.
A summary judgment in favor of the petitioner (City of Manila) was rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court, which was subsequently elevated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

After the RTC affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision, ANC filed a supersedeas bond amounting to P2,700,000.00 to stay the execution of the judgment.
On June 10, 1991, the petitioner filed an ex parte motion for execution, contending that under RA 6031 the judgment had become final and executory even though the reglementary period for appeal had not yet expired.
Judge Wilfredo Reyes of the RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution on the same day, which was subsequently served on ANC at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
ANC, initially moving to quash the writ on June 11, 1991, eventually filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
On July 3, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, setting aside the order of execution and the writ of execution.

Despite the pending appeal, the writ of execution was effectively enforced by Sheriff Dominador Cacpal and Deputy Sheriff Reynaldo Cordero.
These officers were reported to have forcibly taken out numerous movables from the leased premises—including chandeliers, furniture, music organs, stereo components, lighting fixtures, and computers—while also disconnecting essential utilities.
The sheriffs did not observe the mandatory notice and waiting period (normally three to five days) prescribed by the Rules of Court prior to enforcement, leading to accusations of arbitrary and injudicious conduct.
The improper seizure not only deprived ANC of the opportunity to retrieve its personal belongings but also highlighted the absence of a justified emergency condition that might have warranted execution pending appeal.

Whether the RTC should have granted the execution order on June 10, 1991, despite the judgment not having become final and executory due to the still-open reglementary period for filing an appeal by ANC.
Whether, under the provisions of RA 6031 and BP 129, execution pending appeal is permissible when the underlying RTC decision has not met the requirements of finality (i.e., lapse of the appeal period).
Whether the use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari and prohibition is appropriate when the ordinary remedy of appeal is available, albeit potentially inadequate in safeguarding the rights of the party faced with an execution order.
Whether the conduct of the executing officers—who enforced the writ without proper notice and due process—constitutes a grave abuse of discretion justifying the reversal of the execution order.