G.R. No. 129382 - Siasat vs. Court of Appeals

On November 29, 1991, private respondent Genie Development Corporation (GDC) instituted an ejectment case against petitioners Victor Siasat and Jesus Ong in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 42351 and assigned to Branch 65.
Summons, complaint, and annexes were issued and served on petitioners on December 18, 1991.

Petitioners failed to file an answer by January 2, 1992, resulting in their default.
On January 30, 1992, 28 days after the expiration period, counsel Atty. Jeremias Vitan filed a Motion to Lift the Order of Default, which was subsequently denied.
A decision was rendered on March 23, 1992, and received by petitioners on March 31, 1992.
With no appeal filed within the reglementary period, a writ of execution was issued and served, with the ejectment effectively executed as indicated by the Certificate of Turn Over dated April 28, 1992.

Sheriff Joel Feraren levied several sewing machines and other personal properties to satisfy the monetary aspect of the decision, scheduling an auction sale for May 5, 1992.
The auction sale was halted due to an order by Executive Judge Job Madayag on May 4, 1992, connected with the petitioners’ filing of a Petition for Relief from Judgment (with a preliminary injunction and restraining order) in the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), Civil Case No. 92-1198.
In their petition for relief from judgment, petitioners alleged that their former counsel, Atty. Jeremias Vitan, acted with negligence and bad faith, causing their default and failure to appeal.

During the RTC hearing on the petition for injunction, petitioners introduced the writ of execution and the Notice of Levy and Sale as evidence.
Private respondent GDC responded by filing an Answer with Opposition and subpoenaing Atty. Jeremias Vitan, who testified that the default was due to the petitioners' own action, not his negligence.
On May 19, 1992, petitioners filed a Motion for the Release of Levied Properties, opposed by GDC.
On May 25, 1992, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the sheriff from proceeding with the auction sale and simultaneously ordered the immediate release of the levied properties.
Following the RTC order, petitioners and the sheriff forced open the respondent’s premises to execute the release of the properties.

Private respondent GDC filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s orders (granting both the preliminary injunction and the motion for property release).
On December 22, 1992, the 6th Division of the Supreme Court declared that the actions of the RTC judge amounted to grave abuse of discretion and a lack of jurisdiction, setting aside the RTC orders.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by GDC and denied on July 6, 1992.
On June 14, 1994, GDC filed a motion for summary judgment, which was opposed by petitioners, culminating in the RTC, Branch 134’s summary judgment on August 10, 1994.
Petitioners subsequently appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
By January 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in toto, and petitioners’ motion for reconsideration filed on February 11, 1997, was denied on May 14, 1997.
This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court via certiorari.

Whether genuine issues of material fact exist that could support petitioners’ claim for relief from judgment.
Whether the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, being supported by substantial evidence, should be reexamined by the Supreme Court in an appeal via certiorari.
Whether the petition for relief from judgment, filed in connection with an ejectment case under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, is procedurally proper and allowable.