Fuente v. Jugo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a landlord-tenant relationship where the petitioners, Narcisa de la Fuente and Jose Teodoro, Jr., sought to recover possession of leased premises from the respondent, Luis Borromeo. The municipal court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering Borromeo to vacate and pay monthly rent. This judgment was subsequently appealed. Procedural History: Following the municipal court's decision, the respondent appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of First Instance rendered its own judgment on August 21, 1945, affirming the order for Borromeo to restore possession and pay rent. Borromeo then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, with the record on appeal being approved on October 24, 1945, and transmitted to the Supreme Court on October 30, 1945. The Petition: The petitioners filed a motion on November 12, 1945, with the Court of First Instance, seeking a writ of execution for the municipal court's judgment due to the respondent's alleged failure to deposit rent. The petitioners are now before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, arguing the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in denying this motion. However, the Court clarifies that the true nature of the petition is for mandamus, seeking to compel the judge to issue the writ of execution under the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for a writ of execution. Whether mandamus lies to compel the respondent judge to issue the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is denied with costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for a writ of execution: The Court held that the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction. Firstly, the judgment of the municipal court had been superseded by the judgment of the Court of First Instance rendered on August 21, 1945. Consequently, the CFI could not order the execution of the municipal court's judgment, which had become functus officio. Section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that if a case is tried on its merits in the CFI, any money paid into court shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of the CFI. Furthermore, Section 9 of the same Rule provides for the execution of the CFI judgment during the pendency of an appeal to the Supreme Court if the defendant fails to pay the required amounts. On the issue of whether mandamus lies to compel the respondent judge to issue the writ of execution: The Court ruled that mandamus does not lie. This is because, secondly, when the motion for a writ of execution was filed on November 12, 1945, the Court of First Instance had already lost jurisdiction over the case. This loss of jurisdiction occurred in accordance with Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which applies to both ordinary and special civil actions. The respondent had appealed from the CFI's judgment to the Supreme Court, and the record on appeal was approved on October 24, 1945. As the CFI had already lost jurisdiction, the respondent judge had no power to order the execution of any judgment, whether it be the municipal court's or his own court's.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus will not lie to compel a judge to issue a writ of execution of a municipal court judgment when that judgment has been superseded by a Court of First Instance judgment, and when the Court of First Instance has already lost jurisdiction over the case due to the perfection of an appeal to the Supreme Court.