Tomboc v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a case of forcible entry and detainer. The plaintiff, Gerardo Nabor, alleged that the defendant, Juan Tomboc, unlawfully entered and occupied land that Nabor had possessed peacefully for over ten years. The judgment from the justice of the peace court found that Tomboc had taken possession through fraud and stratagem, and ordered Tomboc to return the land to Nabor and pay P400 in damages, representing the annual product of the land, with monthly payments of P33.33 ¹/3. Procedural History: Following the judgment of the justice of the peace court in favor of Gerardo Nabor, Juan Tomboc appealed to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. While the appeal was pending, Nabor filed a motion for execution of the judgment. The Court of First Instance granted this motion, issuing an execution. Tomboc, considering this execution to be in excess of jurisdiction, initiated a certiorari proceeding. The Petition: Juan Tomboc filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the execution order issued by the Court of First Instance. Tomboc contended that the execution was granted in excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considered the sufficiency of the bond posted by Tomboc and the failure to make monthly payments as stipulated by law and the judgment. Ultimately, the Court found that the execution order was based on facts and law and was issued with complete jurisdiction, thus denying Tomboc's petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance acted with jurisdiction in issuing an execution pending appeal in a forcible entry and detainer case. Whether the bond posted by the defendant was sufficient to prevent the execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the Court of First Instance acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the writ of execution. The petitioner is ordered to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the execution pending appeal. Under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, the defendant in an appealed ejectment case must not only give a bond to answer for rents, damages, and costs but also pay the plaintiff or deposit with the court the monthly rentals. The judgment of the justice of the peace court fixed the annual product of the land at P400 and the monthly product at P33.33 1/3. The petitioner failed to make these monthly payments as required by law. This failure gave the judgment creditor the right to have an execution issued upon the judgment appealed from. Therefore, the issuance of the execution was a lawful exercise of the court's power, not a grave abuse of discretion or an act in excess of jurisdiction. On Issue 2: While the sufficiency of the bond was raised, the Court's primary focus was on the failure to comply with the monthly payment requirement. The bond posted by the petitioner was for P400, intended to answer for rents, damages, and costs. However, the crucial failure was not in the bond itself but in the non-compliance with the mandate of Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding monthly payments. The law requires both a bond and the payment of monthly rentals to stay execution. Since the petitioner failed to meet the latter requirement, the execution was properly issued, rendering the sufficiency of the bond moot in preventing the execution under these circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that lies only to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal. In this case, the Court found that the Court of First Instance acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of execution pending appeal, as the defendant failed to comply with the conditions set forth in Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure.