Galewsky v. De la Rama
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an action for illegal detainer filed by Ramon de la Rama against Hans Galewsky and Fred Redfern. The Justice of the Peace Court of Pasay ruled in favor of de la Rama, ordering the petitioners to pay monthly rents of P450. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners appealed the Justice of the Peace Court's decision to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. While the appeal was pending, the respondent judge, Eulalio Garcia, upon motion, ordered the petitioners to deposit the monthly rents of P450 with the Clerk of Court. This order was issued despite the petitioners' motion for an extension to deposit the rents. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, by ordering the deposit of monthly rents. They contend this order is contrary to Section 2 of Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent judge merely performed a ministerial duty to order the execution of the lower court's judgment upon the appellants' failure to make the legally required deposit.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the deposit of monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari was denied. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The judge merely complied with the ministerial duty to order the execution of the inferior court's judgment upon the failure of the defendants-appellants to make the required deposit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court explained that the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction to try and decide the illegal detainer action and did not act in excess thereof in rendering its judgment. The question of whether the judgment regarding monthly rentals was in accordance with law did not involve the jurisdiction or discretion of the justice of the peace. Furthermore, the appellate court of the first instance has a ministerial duty to order the execution of the judgment of the inferior court, which had jurisdiction to render it, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. This duty arises when the defendant fails to pay or deposit the monthly rent found to be due by the court a quo to the appellee from the appellant, as required by Section 8 of Rule 72. The Court of First Instance, presided over by the respondent judge, had no power to inquire into the merits of the inferior court's judgment adjudicating the monthly rental amount before ordering the execution of said judgment upon the appellant's failure to make the payment or deposit required by law. Only upon deciding the appealed case on the merits could the appellate court pass upon whether or not the inferior court erred in its application of the law. Therefore, the respondent judge's order was a compliance with a ministerial duty, not an act of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that an appellate court has a ministerial duty to order the execution of a lower court's judgment in an ejectment case if the defendant-appellant fails to deposit the monthly rentals found due by the court a quo. This duty subsists regardless of the pendency of the appeal, and the appellate court cannot delve into the merits of the lower court's decision at this juncture. The failure to make the required deposit renders the appeal susceptible to execution.