Candido v. Camacho
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Natividad Candido, representing Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc., filed a forcible entry case against respondents Ricardo Camacho and Marilou Hernandez. Candido alleged that on July 21, 1994, respondents unlawfully excluded her from the pawnshop premises by padlocking the establishment and taking possession through strategy and stealth. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balanga, Bataan, subsequently ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, restore possession to Candido, and pay P2,000,000.00 for the contents and P8,000.00 per month as rental from July 21, 1994. 2. Procedural History: Following the MTC's decision, petitioner Candido moved for immediate execution. Respondents filed a notice of appeal with the MTC and simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan, assailing both the MTC's decision and its order for immediate execution. The RTC issued a preliminary injunction against the MTC's enforcement of its writ of execution. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's injunction order. The CA dismissed the petitioners' certiorari petition, citing their failure to move for reconsideration of the RTC order and finding that the RTC did not abuse its discretion in enjoining execution due to the MTC's award of P2,000,000.00 as damages, which the CA deemed improper in an ejectment case. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to overturn the CA's decision. Petitioners argue that the general rule in ejectment cases favors execution pending appeal, which can only be stayed by posting a supersedeas bond and depositing accrued rentals. They contend that the respondents' failure to post a supersedeas bond for the adjudged back rentals, despite assailing the P2,000,000.00 damages, rendered the MTC decision immediately executory. Furthermore, petitioners assert that the respondents engaged in forum-shopping by filing both an appeal and a certiorari petition with the RTC, and by simultaneously invoking the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's injunctive order is fatal to the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the RTC did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction, and whether the MTC decision became immediately executory due to respondents' failure to post a supersedeas bond covering accrued rentals. Whether respondents were guilty of forum-shopping.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The preliminary injunction issued by the RTC is LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. Both the appeal and the petition for certiorari filed by the respondents before the RTC are DISMISSED for violation of the non-forum-shopping rule.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court held that a prior motion for reconsideration is not indispensable for commencement of certiorari proceedings if the errors sought to be corrected had been duly heard and passed upon, or were similar to issues already resolved, or if the questions raised are essentially legal in nature. In this case, the parties argued their positions and were heard by the RTC, and the issues were legal, thus dispensing with the motion for reconsideration was proper. On the RTC's injunction and the supersedeas bond: The Court agreed with the CA that the P2,000,000.00 representing the value of pawned articles was improperly included as damages in an ejectment case, as damages are limited to fair rent. However, the Court disagreed with the CA's conclusion that this impropriety relieved respondents of the duty to post a supersedeas bond. The Court emphasized that to stay execution in an ejectment case, compliance with three requisites is mandatory: perfecting an appeal, posting a supersedeas bond, and periodically depositing accruing rentals. The supersedeas bond includes not only damages but also back rentals. Respondents failed to post the supersedeas bond to the extent of the back rentals adjudged by the MTC, rendering the decision immediately executory. On forum-shopping: The Court found respondents' contention that they did not engage in forum-shopping untenable. Forum-shopping occurs when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different venues, simultaneously or successively, based on the same transactions and raising substantially the same issues. Respondents filed a notice of appeal with the MTC and subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC, assailing not only the order of execution but also the main MTC decision. This constituted forum-shopping because they were pursuing multiple remedies concerning the same matter, and the certiorari petition improperly assailed the main decision when appeal was the appropriate remedy. The Court noted that while a petition for certiorari to assail the order of execution was proper, its inclusion of the main decision was improper, especially with a pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
Failure to post a supersedeas bond to cover accrued rentals, even if the damages awarded are disputed, renders the MTC decision in an ejectment case immediately executory. Furthermore, filing a petition for certiorari assailing the main decision of the MTC, while a notice of appeal is pending, constitutes forum-shopping.