G.R. No. L-41225 November 11, 1975
ROSENSONS, INC., ENRIQUE KATIGBAK and ANTONIO D. KATIGBAK, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JOSE JIMENEZ, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila, LEE SAI, GO YIT and NG CHE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosensons, Inc. owned a building leased on a month-to-month basis to respondent Go Yit, who operated the Miami Hotel thereon. Due to Go Yit’s failure to pay the monthly rental for September 1974, Rosensons filed an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 236389) before the Manila City Court. The court rendered judgment on November 12, 1974, ordering Go Yit to vacate the premises, pay arrears and current rentals, and awarding attorney’s fees. Upon Rosensons’ motion, the court issued a writ of execution on November 18, 1974. Go Yit voluntarily vacated upon service of the writ on November 25, 1974. Respondent Ng Che, an employee, informed the sheriff he had been appointed receiver for the hotel partnership by the Court of First Instance (CFI) in a separate case (Civil Case No. 77959). The sheriff nevertheless ordered Ng Che to vacate, and Rosensons closed the hotel and began demolition for a new condominium.
Ng Che then filed a damages case (Civil Case No. 96129) before another CFI branch, which denied his plea for a preliminary injunction. He also reported the eviction to the CFI in Civil Case No. 77959. On December 20, 1974, respondent Judge Jose Jimenez issued an order directing Ng Che to continue as receiver, restraining the sheriffs from molesting him, and ordering Rosensons to stop demolition and provide hotel access. Subsequent orders on March 6 and July 23, 1975, denied Rosensons’ motion to lift the December order and compelled Rosensons to open a hotel room. Rosensons filed this certiorari and prohibition petition, alleging the CFI acted without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance, in Civil Case No. 77959, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders that interfered with the final and executed judgment of the City Court in the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the CFI’s orders. The City Court’s judgment in the ejectment case was final and executory. A writ of execution had been duly issued and enforced, with the lessee Go Yit voluntarily vacating the premises. The CFI, in a separate receivership proceeding (Civil Case No. 77959) involving a dispute between Go Yit and Lee Sai over the hotel partnership, could not nullify or interfere with that executed ejectment judgment. The receivership was merely an ancillary remedy in the partnership case; it did not create a superior right to possession against the building owner, Rosensons, who was not a party to the lease contract with the receiver, Ng Che, or with Lee Sai. The CFI’s orders effectively restored possession, which was a grave abuse of discretion as it disregarded the finality of the ejectment judgment and impaired Rosensons’ vested right of repossession. The proper remedy for any claim by the receiver or Lee Sai was a separate action against Go Yit, not interference with the executed judgment. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court was made permanent.