Facts:
Hector L. Ong, petitioner, filed an action of desahucio in the City Court of Quezon City against his lessee
Evangeline Roces, Case No. 28309, which was thereafter reversed by the Court of First Instance (Branch XVIII) in Case No. Q-25609 and rendered final and executory ordering Evangeline and all persons claiming under her to vacate the premises and to pay rentals in arrears, attorney's fees and costs; the records were remanded to the City Court for execution. The sheriff, acting on the City Court's writ of execution, cleared the premises of occupants including
Anacleto Tating,
Marilyn Tating, and
Robert Tating, and levied upon four chattels consisting of a stereo set, television set, refrigerator and electric desk fan. The Tatings filed third-party claims with the sheriff on September 13, 1979 and thereafter filed with the City Court identical “Urgent Motion for Suspension of Sheriff Sale and for Release of Properties Wrongfully Levied Upon on Execution” dated September 17, 1979, asserting ownership and seeking abatement of the scheduled sale; in response Ong posted two surety bonds to indemnify the sheriff under
Section 17, Rule 39 and opposed the motions, contending that the Tatings should have litigated in the CFI and that their remedy was a suit on the indemnity bonds. The City Court restrained the sale on September 19, 1979 and set the matter for hearing, and on January 23, 1980 denied Ong’s motion to inhibit the City Judge and ordered explanation from Ong’s counsel; Ong sought relief by a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the CFI (Case No. Q-29245) on February 7, 1980, where Branch IX issued a status quo order on April 2, 1980 and later rendered judgment on December 15, 1981 enjoining the City Court from hearing the third-party claims and making the preliminary injunction permanent. The Tatings appealed to the Court of Appeals by a petition for review which the Court of Appeals dismissed on June 23, 1982 and remanded the case to the City Court; Ong then brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition under Rule 45.
Issues:
Did the City Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Tatings’ motions and third-party claims after the posting of indemnity bonds under
Section 17, Rule 39? Was the mode of appeal by the Tatings from the CFI decision proper? Does the posting of an indemnity bond by the judgment creditor divest the executing court of jurisdiction to supervise the sheriff’s acts? What is the proper remedy of third-party claimants who allege wrongful levy and detention of their property? Were
Marilyn Tating and
Robert Tating liable for payment of the rentals adjudged in the judgment against
Evangeline Roces? Should the City Judge have been inhibited from further participation in Civil Case No. 28309?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: