Title
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Veridiano II
Case
G.R. No. 118251
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2001
Petitioner's reconveyance claim dismissed in 1977; appeal abandoned due to delay, rendering judgment final. Execution orders upheld, emphasizing diligence in prosecuting appeals.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118251)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Procedural Background and Initiation of the Case
    • On September 10, 1973, petitioners filed a Complaint for Reconveyance Based on Constructive Trust with Preliminary Injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 4 (Civil Case No. 91880), against respondent China Banking Corporation.
    • Respondent Sunday Machine Works, Incorporated (SMWI), the buyer of the subject property, was impleaded in the complaint and subsequently filed an answer along with a counterclaim framed as an ejectment case.
  • Trial Court Decision and Immediate Orders
    • On December 2, 1977, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents which:
      • Dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit.
      • Ordered petitioners, and their assigns, to surrender possession of the subject property to SMWI.
      • Required petitioners to account for and deliver rental payments (at P6,000.00 per annum) to China Banking Corporation from April 6, 1971 until actual possession was delivered, including interest at the legal rate.
      • Directed petitioners to pay each respondent, China Banking Corporation and SMWI, P15,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees, while dismissing the counterclaims of both respondents due to insufficiency of evidence.
    • Both petitioners and SMWI filed notices of appeal from this decision.
  • Post-Decision Motions and Developments
    • After the trial court rendered its decision, petitioners and respondent SMWI pursued further relief and challenges:
      • SMWI questioned the aspect concerning monthly rentals, prompting a motion for a writ of execution pending appeal.
      • Petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Appeals (CA) under Special Civil Action No. 07572 to question the RTC’s order; however, their petition was dismissed.
      • Petitioners’ subsequent motions for reconsideration concerning the supersedeas bond amount and the grant of execution in favor of SMWI were denied.
    • On October 18, 1979, the RTC issued an Order granting the ex-parte motion for execution in favor of respondent SMWI.
    • Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA regarding the execution order, which was dismissed on August 14, 1980.
    • The CA’s final decision in this context became effective with an entry of judgment on August 31, 1980.
  • Issuance of the Execution and Break-Open Orders
    • On October 28, 1991, nearly four years after the previous developments, and upon motion by the respondents, the RTC issued an alias writ of execution based on its December 2, 1977 decision.
    • Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of this alias writ was denied.
    • On February 10, 1994, respondents moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the third time, relying on the finality of the decision as upheld by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 27197 (April 14, 1993).
    • On June 17, 1994, the RTC issued the assailed Order granting the execution, citing the prior appellate decisions and the finality of the December 2, 1977 judgment.
    • On July 12, 1994, the RTC issued a “Break-Open Order” mandating the sheriff to use necessary force to overcome any barriers delaying the execution of the writ.
    • The very next day, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order (CA-G.R. SP No. 34488) seeking to restrain the implementation of the execution and Break-Open Orders, which was ultimately dismissed by the CA for insufficiencies in form and substance.
  • Allegations and Assignment of Errors
    • Petitioners raised several issues including:
      • The RTC’s alleged error in issuing the writ of execution and Break-Open Order when their appeal in Civil Case No. 91880 was still pending.
      • The assertion that execution should have been stayed by their filing of a supersedeas bond, perfecting the appeal, and making periodic rental payments.
      • The argument that the RTC had lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of the appeal.
    • Additionally, petitioners contended that the CA erred in dismissing their certiorari petition for technical reasons, thereby causing them irreparable damage and prejudice.
  • Respondents’ Position and Relevant Case Citations
    • Respondents maintained that:
      • The December 2, 1977 decision had become final and executory based on petitioners’ abandonment of their appeal due to prolonged delays.
      • The RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution and Break-Open Order was proper and consistent with judicial precedents that discourage undue delay in executing final judgments.
    • The Court referenced established precedents (e.g., Philippine National Construction Corp. and Fagtanac) to reiterate that an appellant must prosecute an appeal with reasonable diligence and cannot rely on procedural technicalities to delay the execution of a judgment.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Timing
    • Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution and Break-Open Order while the appeal was purportedly pending.
    • Whether the RTC’s actions were premature in view of the pending appeal.
  • Stay of Execution Measures
    • Whether the execution of the judgment was effectively stayed by petitioners’ filing of a supersedeas bond and their periodic rental payments.
    • Whether such measures should bar the issuance of the execution and Break-Open Orders.
  • Abandonment of the Appeal
    • Whether the delay and inaction by petitioners in prosecuting their appeal amounted to abandonment.
    • Whether petitioners’ procedural lapses in completing the appellate record (i.e., untranscribed stenographic notes and delayed motions) justify deeming their appeal abandoned.
  • Dismissal of the Certiorari Petition by the Court of Appeals
    • Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners’ certiorari petition on technical grounds despite the contested substance regarding the execution orders.
  • Judicial Efficiency versus Procedural Technicalities
    • Whether adherence to procedural rules by petitioners should outweigh the need to execute a final judgment for the sake of judicial efficiency and finality.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms