Angel Jose Realty Corp. v. Galao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 25, 1945, the Municipal Court of Manila ordered appellants Bernardina Galao and Fong Lay to pay rent and vacate premises. They appealed. Procedural History: On May 16, 1945, the plaintiff filed an ex parte petition for a writ of execution, which the Municipal Court granted without notice to the appellants. On May 25, 1945, the execution was suspended because rents for March to May 1945 had been deposited. On May 29, 1945, the plaintiff again filed a petition for an alias writ of execution without notice, which was granted. The Sheriff ejected the appellants. The writ noted they could stay execution by filing a P200 supersedeas bond, but the Sheriff did not allow them to file it before ejection. Approximately one hour later, the appellants re-entered the premises, breaking a padlock, for lack of shelter. The following day, May 30, being a holiday, they could not file the bond. They filed it on May 31, 1945. The Municipal Court, after hearing and noting the appellants were not given a chance to file the bond before ejection, approved the bond and found no contempt. The plaintiff then filed charges in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, resulting in the appellants' conviction for contempt. The Petition: The appellants appealed the CFI's decision, assigning errors related to jurisdiction, dismissal of the charge, double jeopardy, and the finding of contempt.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellants committed contempt of court in re-entering the premises after being ejected pursuant to a writ of execution that was issued without notice and despite the deposit of rents.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendants and appellants are acquitted of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the defendants were not in contempt because the order of execution they allegedly violated was void and illegal. The Court established that a prerequisite for a contempt conviction is the existence of a lawful and valid judicial order. In this case, the Municipal Court of Manila had lost jurisdiction over the ejectment case once the defendants perfected their appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the Municipal Court disregarded Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a writ of execution in ejectment cases may only be issued upon motion with notice to the adverse party and only if the rents have not been paid or deposited. Because the defendants had already deposited the rents for May 1945 and were not given notice of the plaintiff's petition for the writ, the resulting execution order was issued without authority. Citing the case of Chanco v. Madrilejos, the Court reiterated that a person cannot be punished for disobedience of an order made without authority. Following the doctrine in Weigall v. Shuster, the Court concluded that an order void for want of jurisdiction may be disobeyed without incurring contempt; thus, the appellants' re-entry into the premises did not constitute a punishable offense.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution issued without notice to the adverse party and in disregard of the deposit of rents by the defendant is void and cannot be the basis for a contempt of court charge.