Case Digest (G.R. No. 174042)
Facts:
City of Naga, as represented by Mayor Jesse M. Robredo v. Hon. Elvi John S. Asuncion, et al., G.R. No. 174042, July 09, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the City of Naga (through its Mayor). Respondents are the heirs of Macario A. Mariano (the Mariano respondents), Judge Filemon B. Montenegro (presiding judge, RTC Branch 26, Naga City), Atty. Jesus Mampo (Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 26), Sheriff Jorge B. Lopez, and the Court of Appeals (12th Division) with Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion as ponente and Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Arturo G. Tayag concurring.The property in dispute was part of a 229,301–sq.m. parcel originally owned by Macario A. Mariano and Jose A. Gimenez and subdivided as City Heights Subdivision; the subdivision officers offered certain lots for the construction of the Naga City Hall and the municipal government accepted and took possession. Over the years the city constructed the City Hall, public market and permitted national and local offices (NBI, LTO, Hall of Justice, etc.) to occupy portions of the lots. After Macario Mariano’s death, his heirs demanded return of Blocks 25 and 26; when negotiations failed, the heirs filed an unlawful detainer complaint.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the unlawful detainer action for lack of jurisdiction (Decision, Feb. 14, 2005). On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26 reversed (Decision, June 20, 2005), ordering the City to surrender possession, forfeiture of improvements, monthly compensation of P2,500,000.00, attorney’s fees, and costs. The City filed motions for inhibition and reconsideration which the RTC denied (June–July 2005). Respondents moved for issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC; petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) with an urgent motion for TRO and a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on July 22, 2005.
On August 16, 2006 the CA (Asuncion, J., concurring Mendoza and Tayag, JJ.) denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, finding no immediate threat of grave and irreparable injury. The RTC issued an Order on August 17, 2006 directing issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal under Section 21, Rule 70, but excepting the NBI, Naga City Hall and Hall of Justice from execution; the Clerk issued the writ and the Sheriff served a Notice to Vacate and a Notice of Garnishment (Aug. 22–23, 2006). The Cit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner invoke the proper remedy in challenging the CA Resolution, RTC Order and the attendant notices and writs?
- Was petitioner guilty of forum-shopping by filing the present Rule 65 petition while a petition for review was pending in the Court of Appeals?
- Did RTC Judge Montenegro commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering and allowing execution pending appeal?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s applic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)