G.R. No. L-10486; November 27, 1957
SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. JOSE TEODORO, SR., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On June 11, 1955, respondent Eduardo del Castillo filed an action for illegal detainer in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bago, Negros Occidental against petitioner Sergio F. del Castillo and Rosalina Perez. Petitioner, the lessee of the property, sub-leased it to Perez. Petitioner contested the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the case involved contract interpretation and claims for damages and attorney’s fees totaling P12,500. On October 3, 1955, the court ruled against both defendants, ordering them to vacate, pay unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, and moral/exemplary damages. Petitioner appealed but initially failed to file a supersedeas bond, leading to an order of execution on October 22, 1955. Perez did not appeal. Petitioner later filed a supersedeas bond, but the justice of the peace court refused to approve it, claiming loss of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s subsequent certiorari case in the Court of First Instance was dismissed. Upon transmission of the record to the Court of First Instance, petitioner filed and had a supersedeas bond approved on November 29, 1955, suspending execution against him. Respondent then moved for execution against Perez, as her judgment was final. Petitioner opposed, arguing his appeal and bond should also benefit Perez because her rights as sub-lessee were entirely dependent on his lease, and executing against her would defeat his appeal. The court overruled the opposition and granted execution against Perez on February 20, 1956. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the court, deeming his opposition disrespectful for appearing to represent Perez without authority, found him guilty of contempt and fined him P20. Petitioner now seeks certiorari to annul both the execution order against Perez and the contempt order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal and supersedeas bond filed by petitioner Sergio F. del Castillo should forestall the execution of the judgment against his co-defendant and sub-lessee, Rosalina Perez, who did not appeal.
2. Whether the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of contempt for opposing the execution against Perez.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of execution against Rosalina Perez. Applying the principles from Velez vs. Ramas and Municipality of Orion vs. Concha, the Court held that where defendants’ rights are so connected that the liability of one depends on the liability of another, an appeal by one inures to the benefit of all. Here, Perez’s right to possession as a sub-lessee is directly derived from and entirely dependent on petitioner’s rights as the lessee under the original contract. The issue of possession is common to both. Therefore, the appeal taken by petitioner, the principal lessee, necessarily suspends the execution against his sub-lessee. To execute against Perez while petitioner’s appeal is pending would frustrate the correlative rights and potentially render his appeal moot.
2. No. The Supreme Court set aside the contempt order. Petitioner filed his opposition in his own capacity as a party defendant, not as counsel for Perez, as he had explained to the trial court. Given his contractual relationship with Perez, he had a legitimate interest in opposing an execution that could affect his own appeal and rights. His action was not improper and did not warrant disciplinary action.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition granted. The orders dated February 20, 1956 (granting execution against Perez) and March 10, 1956 (finding petitioner in contempt) are set aside. The writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court is made permanent. Costs against respondent Eduardo del Castillo.