G.R. No. 173616 June 25, 2014
AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (NINETEENTH DIVISION) and BERNIE G. MIAQUE, Respondents.

FACTS

The Air Transportation Office (ATO) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Bernie G. Miaque in the MTCC of Iloilo City. The MTCC ruled in favor of ATO, ordering Miaque to vacate three premises (an 800-sq.m. Refreshment Parlor, a 310-sq.m. Restaurant/Gift Shop, and areas used for Porterage Service) and to pay accrued rentals and fees. Miaque appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTCC decision. Miaque then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 79439), which was dismissed. His subsequent petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 171099) was also denied. During the pendency of his appeal to the CA, the RTC granted ATO’s motion for execution and issued a writ. The CA, however, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the execution while the petition was pending. After the CA dismissed Miaque’s petition, ATO filed an urgent motion for execution with the RTC, which was granted. The sheriffs partially executed the writ, delivering possession of the Restaurant/Gift Shop and Porterage Service areas to ATO, but Miaque later regained possession based on the CA’s injunction. After the Supreme Court denied Miaque’s petition, ATO moved for revival of the writs of execution. The RTC granted this. Miaque then filed a new petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603), assailing the RTC’s revival order. The CA issued a Resolution granting a TRO and a subsequent Resolution issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the writs of execution. The CA held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to order the writ’s issuance because the CA had given due course to the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79439 and rendered a decision, thereby divesting the RTC of jurisdiction. The ATO filed this petition challenging the CA’s Resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Resolutions dated March 29, 2006 (granting a TRO) and May 30, 2006 (issuing a writ of preliminary injunction) that enjoined the implementation of the writs of execution issued by the RTC.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the challenged CA Resolutions, and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC Decision in an ejectment appeal is immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The posting of a supersedeas bond and the periodic deposit of rentals during the appeal are the only ways to stay execution. The records showed Miaque failed to make current his supersedeas bond and to pay rentals, thus execution was proper. The CA’s reasoning that the RTC was divested of jurisdiction because the CA gave due course to the petition was erroneous. The RTC retained jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, especially since Miaque violated the conditions for a stay. Furthermore, the CA’s injunction in the new case (CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603) was improper because it effectively stayed the execution of a final and executory judgment. The MTCC decision had already become final after the Supreme Court’s denial of Miaque’s petition. The CA’s injunction frustrated the execution of this final judgment, which is a circumvention of the rules and constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The purpose of execution pending appeal in ejectment cases is to prevent further injustice from prolonged possession by a defeated party.