G.R. No. 170596 - Ngo Sin Sing vs. Li Seng Giap and Sons, Inc.

Maunlad Homes, Inc. (Respondent) filed an unlawful detainer case against the National Power Corporation (NPC) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Malolos City, Bulacan.
MTCC Branch 1 rendered a decision dated October 26, 2009, ordering NPC to vacate the premises, surrender possession to respondent, pay monthly compensation, and attorney’s fees.
NPC appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 78, which affirmed the MTCC decision on May 18, 2010.
Respondent filed a Motion for Execution; NPC opposed and filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on August 5, 2010, granting motion for execution instead.
Writ of Execution Pending Appeal was issued on August 25, 2010, and a Notice of Demand was served on NPC on September 6, 2010.

Sheriff attempted enforcement on NPC’s warehouse properties in Barangay Lagundi, Mexico, Pampanga, but security guards blocked entry.
NPC claimed the warehouse belonged to both NPC and Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), an entity created under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law).
PSALM allegedly owns the assets pursuant to the EPIRA Law, but ownership of items in the warehouse was unclear as transfer was ongoing.
On October 26, 2010, the RTC issued a Break Open Order authorizing entry into the warehouse.
On November 4, 2010, the sheriff issued a Notice of Levy on specific personal properties (transformer parts and angle bars) for public auction scheduled November 12, 2010.

On November 9, 2010, PSALM filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim with the sheriff, asserting ownership of the levied properties under EPIRA Law.
On November 10, 2010, PSALM filed a Manifestation and Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Status Quo Order with the RTC, requesting nullification of the levy and restoration of possession.
RTC held the public auction sale in abeyance on November 11, 2010.
On February 1, 2011, the RTC denied the motion for Status Quo Order and the third-party claim, and directed the sheriff to proceed with execution and sale.
On February 21, 2011, the sheriff issued a notice of sale of the levied properties.

PSALM petitioned for certiorari with the CA, assailing the Break Open Order, Notice of Levy, RTC’s denial of Status Quo Order and third-party claim, and notice of sale.
PSALM claimed no adequate remedy was available in the ordinary course of law, and RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders.
The CA dismissed the petition on July 30, 2012, finding that the proper remedy was the filing of a separate action under Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
PSALM’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on December 10, 2014.
PSALM elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

The CA erred in dismissing PSALM’s petition on procedural grounds and in overlooking its third-party claim.
PSALM asserted ownership over the levied properties under EPIRA Law, which transferred NPC’s assets but not the obligation to pay Maunlad Homes.
PSALM contended it was not a party to the unlawful detainer case and thus not bound by its judgment.
PSALM prayed for annulment of the levy and sale of the properties.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing PSALM’s petition for certiorari as an improper remedy for the denial of its third-party claim.
Whether PSALM sufficiently established ownership of the levied properties to warrant relief from the enforcement of the writ of execution.
Whether there exists a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to PSALM aside from the petition for certiorari.
Whether PSALM, as a non-party to the underlying action, may be bound by the judgment against NPC and the levy of properties claimed owned by PSALM.