Case Digest (G.R. No. 190043)
Facts:
Santos-Yllana Realty Corporation v. Spouses Ricardo Deang and Florentina Deang, G.R. No. 190043, June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Santos-Yllana Realty Corporation owns and operates the Santos‑Yllana Shopping Center. Respondent Florentina Deang, doing business as Rommel Dry Goods, was the lessee of Stall No. H‑6; respondents are the spouses Ricardo and Florentina Deang. Petitioner sued respondents for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Angeles City on August 11, 1997; the MTC issued a decision on October 16, 1997 based on a compromise agreement.
After respondents allegedly failed to comply with the compromise terms, petitioner moved for execution of the MTC decision on January 16, 1998. The MTC granted issuance of a writ of execution on February 20, 1998. Respondents moved to quash the writ; on February 26, 1998 Sheriff Allen Sicat of the Angeles City RTC implemented the writ and padlocked the stall, but the stall was ordered reopened the same day because a motion for reconsideration was pending. The MTC, however, on June 3, 1998, reaffirmed the writ and commanded its implementation; on June 5, 1998 Sheriff Daniel Pangan executed the writ and turned over the premises to petitioner’s representative.
Aggrieved, respondents filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer for Injunctive Relief before the Manila RTC, Branch 44, naming petitioner and Sheriffs Sicat and Pangan, alleging illegal implementation of the writ, detention of personal property, loss of business and goodwill, and claiming P500,000 actual damages, P250,000 moral damages, P250,000 exemplary damages, and P100,000 attorney’s fees plus appearance fees. The Manila RTC found that the writ had been implemented with undue haste in violation of due process, held petitioner and the sheriffs jointly and severally liable, and awarded the damages and fees claimed.
Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 65768 (Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Normandie B. Pizarro) found that the sheriffs failed to comply with the notice requirement of Section 10(c), Rule 39, absolved petitioner of fault or complicity in the manner of implementation, but nevertheless sustained awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees while deleting the award for actual damages and reducing ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against petitioner despite its finding that petitioner had no participation in the improper implementation of the writ ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)