Alpa-Pcm, Inc. v. Bulasao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The private respondents, Vincent, Juliet, and Susana Bulasao, filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner ALPA-PCM, Inc. (ALPA-PCM) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC ruled in favor of the Bulasaos, ordering ALPA-PCM to vacate the property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC's decision. Subsequently, the Bulasaos filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Procedural History: ALPA-PCM filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, which was denied. ALPA-PCM then filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition/appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). Meanwhile, the RTC granted the Bulasaos' motion for execution. ALPA-PCM sought reconsideration of the order granting execution, which was denied, and the RTC subsequently issued a writ of execution. ALPA-PCM filed a certiorari petition with the CA, arguing that the RTC orders granting execution were void due to the pendency of its appeal, which deprived the RTC of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed ALPA-PCM's petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and stating that the RTC had residual jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal. ALPA-PCM filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was initially denied. ALPA-PCM filed the present motion for reconsideration. The Petition: ALPA-PCM sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's denial of its petition, reiterating its arguments that good reasons must justify execution pending appeal and that the RTC acted with undue haste by granting execution before resolving its motion for reconsideration. It also argued that the motion for execution was premature as it preceded ALPA-PCM's motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC retained residual jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution pending appeal despite ALPA-PCM's filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the CA. Whether the RTC committed an error in granting the motion for execution before resolving ALPA-PCM's motion for reconsideration. Whether the RTC decision in an unlawful detainer case, on appeal to the CA, is immediately executory without need for "good reasons" under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration and imposed treble costs against ALPA-PCM, Inc., to be paid by its counsel, Atty. Guillermo R. Bandonil, Jr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's residual jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that Rule 42 of the Rules of Court grants the RTC residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, provided the CA has not yet given due course to the petition and the requirements of Section 2, Rule 39 are observed. In this case, ALPA-PCM had only filed a motion for extension of time to file its petition for review with the CA, not the petition itself. Therefore, the CA had not yet given due course to the appeal, and the RTC retained its residual jurisdiction to authorize execution of the decision. The Court emphasized that the RTC's power to grant execution pending appeal is part of its residual jurisdiction under Section 8, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which allows such orders before the CA gives due course to the petition. On the timing of the motion for execution and reconsideration: The Court clarified that while the RTC is precluded from acting on a motion for execution until it has resolved a pending motion for reconsideration, the prevailing party's filing of a motion for execution ahead of the adverse party's motion for reconsideration is not irregular. In this case, the RTC granted the Bulasaos' motion for execution only after it had denied ALPA-PCM's motion for reconsideration, thus adhering to the rule. The Court distinguished this from the cited case of JP Latex Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc., explaining that the ruling did not prevent the filing of a motion for execution but rather the RTC's action on it until the motion for reconsideration was resolved. On the immediate executory nature of unlawful detainer decisions: The Court stressed that unlawful detainer cases are governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which mandates that decisions of the RTC in its appellate capacity are immediately executory. Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure explicitly states that the decision shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal. This provision does not require any further justification or "good reasons" for the RTC to authorize execution, even if an appeal has been filed with the CA. The objective of expeditious determination inherent in summary procedure provides the "good reason" for immediate execution.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in its appellate capacity are immediately executory without need for further justification, even if an appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), provided the RTC has not lost its residual jurisdiction.