G.R. No. L-22382 - Republic Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Co.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and nature of the case
The Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B. L. Reyes and the heirs of Dr. Edmundo A. Reyes filed a verified administrative complaint represented by Adoracion Reyes against Justices Demetrio G. Demetria, Ramon A. Barcelona, and Roberto A. Barrios of the Court of Appeals (Special Third Division), against Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen (Division Clerk of Court, Special Fourth Division), and against Mr. Efren R. Rivamonte (Special Sheriff, Mailing Section).
The complaint alleged violations of Section 11, Rule 59 and Sec. 8, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, Sections 3.01 and 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code, for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

Underlying lease and ejectment proceedings
Complainants’ predecessors-in-interest executed a contract on November 30, 1976 leasing to Metro Manila Builders, Inc. (Manila Builders) a parcel of land along Taft Avenue, Pasay City with an area of more than one (1) hectare.
The lease covered twenty five (25) years at a rental rate of P15,000.00 to P30,000.00 a month.
Under the lease agreement, Manila Builders undertook to cover present and future improvements with insurance against certain risks, and to maintain the premises in good, sanitary, and tenantable condition.
Manila Builders allegedly violated the lease terms.
Complainants exercised their right to unilateral rescission by sending notice terminating the lease and demanding that Manila Builders vacate and surrender the premises.
On February 3, 1997, complainants filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 45 a complaint for unlawful detainer based on breach of the contract of lease (Civil Case No. 113-97).
The trial court decided on May 9, 1997 in complainants’ favor and ordered Manila Builders evicted.
On May 16, 1997, complainants filed a motion for execution of the judgment of eviction.

Appeals, restraining orders, and annulment attempt
Manila Builders appealed to the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 113, but the appeal was later dismissed for failure to file an appeal memorandum on time.
On November 5, 1997, Manila Builders elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
On November 26, 1997, the trial court granted the motion for execution; the order issued on December 1, 1997.
On December 8, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued an order restraining execution of the ejectment judgment.
On February 7, 1998, the Court of Appeals allowed withdrawal of Manila Builders’ appeal.
Simultaneously, Manila Builders filed with the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 231 an action for annulment of the ejectment judgment (Civil Case No. 98-0366) alleging court a quo lack of jurisdiction, and sought a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to enjoin execution.
The regional trial court did not issue an injunction.
On March 23, 1998, Manila Builders filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus questioning the regional trial court’s sub-silencio denial of injunctive relief.
On the same day, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution restraining enforcement of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 113-97.
The March 23, 1998 resolution was signed by only two (2) members of the division: Justice Demetrio G. Demetria (ponente) and Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (concurring).
Justice Omar U. Amin, member, did not sign.

Dismissal of annulment and Court of Appeals decision on the merits
On April 14, 1998, in Civil Case No. 98-0366, the regional trial court dismissed the annulment action, holding that Manila Builders’ remedy was appeal in due time; withdrawal effectively abandoned the remedy.
On August 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision setting aside the trial court’s May 9, 1997 decision and setting aside the March 23, 1998 and April 14, 1998 orders.
The August 21, 1998 dispositive portion ordered restoration of possession to Manila Builders and enjoined further disturbance until after expiration of the lease.

Execution pending appeal despite petition for review
On August 21, 1998, Manila Builders filed a very urgent ex-parte motion for execution pending appeal.
On September 14, 1998, complainants filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ August 21, 1998 decision (G.R. Nos. 135180-81).
On September 17, 1998, complainants filed with the Court of Appeals a consolidated comment on the very urgent motion for execution pending appeal, with a motion to defer consideration due to the pendency of their petition before the Supreme Court.
Despite the pending Supreme Court petition, on September 18, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting execution pending appeal.
The September 18, 1998 resolution issued a writ of execution pending appeal and ordered restoration.
The September 18, 1998 resolution also adjudged private respondents and their counsel guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a fine of P30,000.00, and directed a complete restoration of the subject property.
On September 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals (Second Division) issued a resolution directing the chief of the Mailing Section to appoint a special sheriff to execute the August 21, 1998 decision, based on a letter from Justice Demetrio G. Demetria.
On the same day, Efren R. Rivamonte, a process server at the mailing section, was appointed special sheriff to enforce the writ.
A writ of execution was issued ordering Rivamonte to enforce the writ based on the September 18, 1998...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Procedural regularity and authority of the Court of Appeals on the March 23, 1998 temporary restraining order
Whether the March 23, 1998 resolution restraining enforcement of execution was validly issued when only two members signed and one member did not sign.
Whether Justice Demetria’s and Marigomen’s roles in that resolution showed gross misconduct or gross ignorance of law.

Authority to order execution pending appeal of the Court of Appeals’ own decision
Whether the Court of Appeals had authority to order execution pending appeal of its own August 21, 1998 decision.
Whether the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal despite the pending Supreme Court petition amounted to knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or gross misconduct.

Appointment and role of the special sheriff and compliance by process server Rivamonte
Whether the Court of Appeals, through a Second Division minute resolution, could direct the chief of the Mailing Section to appoint a special sheriff to enforce execution pending appeal.
Whether Rivamonte acted within the scope of his duties, and whether reliance on superior orders absolved or mitigated administrative liability.

Administra...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22382)
Advanced