Case Digest (G.R. No. 203492)
Facts:
Pablo and Pablina Marcelo‑Mendoza v. Peroxide Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 203492, April 24, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners, Pablo and Pablina Marcelo‑Mendoza, are the registered owners of a parcel of land (the subject property) formerly leased to Peroxide Phils., Inc. (PPI); the lease was executed in 1971 by the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, Gregorio Marcelo. A forcible ejectment suit and related proceedings followed: the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Valenzuela City on July 18, 1988 ordered PPI to vacate and awarded damages, and a writ of execution issued on June 2, 1995. During levy and execution activities in 1995, third‑party claimants filed affidavits of third‑party claims; a sheriff’s sale on August 3, 1995 sold certain levied properties to Pablo as highest bidder.
The third‑party claimants (later joined by PPI) filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q‑93‑24760) seeking to annul the sheriff’s sale and to declare PPI’s ownership of improvements on the land. A writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) was issued on September 8, 1995 by Presiding Judge Pedro T. Santiago; that WPI was later unsuccessfully challenged by Pablo in earlier petitions (G.R. No. 127271), where this Court sustained the WPI. Despite the injunctions, Pablo repeatedly removed padlocks, dismantled and removed machinery and improvements, occupied the premises and operated parts of it as a resort, and otherwise resisted enforcement.
Across several judges the RTC issued orders to padlock and re‑padlock the premises (orders dated October 4, 2000; February 8, 2001; February 20, 2006; August 24, 2007; and June 19, 2009). PPI filed motions to compel enforcement, an ocular inspection and inventory, and an Omnibus Motion alleging violations of court orders. After continued noncompliance and renewed enforcement steps, Judge Jose G. Paneda issued an Omnibus Order dated June 22, 2011 denying PPI’s motion for inhibition, denying a motion for reconsideration as moot, and granting the petitioners’ motion to remove the padlock and allowing Pablo to re‑enter and possess the premises.
PPI sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Paneda; on May 21, 2012 the CA granted certiorari, revoked and vacated the RTC’s Omnibus Order, directed the sheriff to return possession to PPI for retrieval of its properties and to re‑padlock pending trial, and ordered Judge Paneda to inhibit himsel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the petitioners’ motion to remove the padlock on the subject pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)