Bugarin v. Palisoc
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC decision with modification regarding rental payments. Procedural History: Private respondents moved for execution pending appeal. The RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration and granted the motion for execution, as petitioners failed to post a supersedeas bond or pay back rentals. A writ of execution pending appeal was issued. Petitioners filed a motion to defer implementation, while private respondents moved for a special order of demolition. Petitioners argued that Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279 was not complied with. The RTC denied petitioners' motions, declared its decision final and executory, and remanded the case to the MeTC. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Meanwhile, the MeTC granted the motion for demolition, giving petitioners five days to vacate. When petitioners refused, the MeTC issued a Special Order of Demolition. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, assailing the MeTC orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the MeTC orders for eviction and demolition were proper and whether the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was a proper remedy. Whether Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279 was violated. Whether the case is moot.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for mootness and lack of merit. The MeTC orders were proper, and the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy. The case has become moot and academic as the demolition has already been executed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the MeTC orders, the use of certiorari, and the mootness of the case: The Court reiterated that under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action is immediately executory. The duty to order execution is ministerial. To stay execution pending appeal, a defendant must perfect an appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and make periodic deposits of rent. Once the RTC decides on the appeal, its decision is immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70, without prejudice to a further appeal. In this case, petitioners failed to file a petition for review before the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period after receiving the RTC decision denying their motion for reconsideration. Instead, they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the appeal remedy was available but lost due to the petitioner's fault or negligence. Therefore, the RTC correctly remanded the case to the MeTC, and the MeTC acted properly in issuing the assailed orders to enforce the RTC judgment. The Court of Appeals did not issue any injunction to stay the execution. The Court observed that the order of demolition had already been executed, with the petitioners having vacated the area and possession having been turned over to the private respondents. This rendered the instant case before the Supreme Court moot and academic, as there was no longer any practical relief that could be granted. On the alleged violation of Republic Act No. 7279: The Court found the contention that the MeTC orders violated Republic Act No. 7279, particularly Section 28(c), to be without merit. Section 28(c) allows eviction or demolition when there is a court order for the same, which was present in this case. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no proof on record that the petitioners were "underprivileged and homeless citizens" as defined in Section 3(t) of Republic Act No. 7279. Consequently, the procedure for eviction or demolition under Section 28(c) was not applicable. The private respondents also argued that the law was not applicable as petitioners were not registered beneficiaries of a socialized housing program, and that notices were already complied with when the writ of execution was served on March 7, 2003. On the mootness of the case: The Court observed that the order of demolition had already been executed, with the petitioners having vacated the area and possession having been turned over to the private respondents. This rendered the instant case before the Supreme Court moot and academic, as there was no longer any practical relief that could be granted.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the remedy of appeal is available and was lost due to the petitioner's fault or negligence. Furthermore, the execution of a judgment in an ejectment case is generally ministerial, and the requirements of Republic Act No. 7279 regarding notice and assistance for eviction or demolition do not apply when the eviction is based on a court order and the occupants are not proven to be beneficiaries of socialized housing programs.