Case Digest (G.R. No. 215933)
Facts:
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) v. Maunlad Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 215933, February 08, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Maunlad Homes, Inc. (respondent) instituted an unlawful detainer complaint with damages against National Power Corporation (NPC) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Malolos City; the MTCC, in a decision dated October 26, 2009, ordered NPC to vacate and pay damages. NPC appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, which affirmed the MTCC decision in a May 18, 2010 judgment; the RTC later denied NPC's motion for reconsideration and granted Maunlad Homes' motion for execution, leading to issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal and a sheriff's demand in September 2010.
Execution proceedings targeted personal property in an NPC warehouse in Barangay Lagundi, Mexico, Pampanga. When the sheriff attempted levy and sale, security personnel prevented access; a Break Open Order was issued by the RTC on October 26, 2010 to permit entry. On November 4, 2010 the sheriff issued a Notice of Levy describing items to be sold. Claiming ownership by operation of law under Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA), PSALM filed an affidavit of third-party claim with the sheriff on November 9, 2010 and a manifestation with an urgent ex parte motion for a status quo order with the RTC on November 10, 2010, seeking nullification of the levy and restoration of possession.
The RTC initially held the sale in abeyance (November 11, 2010) but later, after hearings, denied PSALM's motion for issuance of a status quo order and its third-party claim in an Order dated February 1, 2011 and directed the sheriff to proceed with execution. PSALM then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the Break Open Order, the levy, and the RTC's denial of its third-party claim; the CA dismissed the petition on July 30, 2012 as the wrong remedy, holding that Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides the appropriate recourse for a third-party claimant. PSALM's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on December 10, 2014.
PSALM elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), arguing (inter alia) that the CA overlooked its pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing PSALM’s petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy?
- Should the RTC have granted PSALM’s third-party claim because PSALM owned the levied properties and did not assume the judgme...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)