G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992
SPOUSES BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA and HON. JUDGE JOSE M. AGUILA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 106, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Trinidad filed an ejectment case against private respondents Spouses Cabrera in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. The MeTC rendered a decision in favor of the Trinidads, ordering the Cabreras to vacate the premises, pay rentals in arrears, compensation for use and occupancy, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision on appeal. The Cabreras’ petition for review in the Court of Appeals was dismissed, and their subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 95128) was denied by resolution dated December 10, 1990. The Cabreras, through a new counsel, Atty. Diosdado L. Dapucanta, filed a motion for reconsideration of this denial. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated February 11, 1991, NOTED the appearance of Atty. Dapucanta “the same being not filed in accordance with the Rules” and “NOTED without action” his motion for reconsideration. An entry of judgment was made by the Supreme Court on January 31, 1991. The Trinidads then moved for execution in the MeTC, and a writ of execution was issued. The Cabreras filed a petition for injunction in the RTC (Civil Case No. Q-91-9005) to stop the execution, arguing that their motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court was still pending as it was only “noted without action.” Respondent Judge Jose M. Aguila granted the injunction, ruling that the motion for reconsideration was still pending resolution, the entry of judgment was premature, and the execution was therefore premature.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose M. Aguila committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for injunction and enjoining the execution of the final and executory MeTC decision in the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Aguila committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside his decision. The Court held that Judge Aguila overstepped his authority by sitting in judgment upon the action of the Supreme Court, specifically by declaring its entry of judgment as premature. His duty was to execute, enforce, and implement the final decisions of the Supreme Court, not to impede them. The Supreme Court’s resolution “noting without action” the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Dapucanta was because the motion was a sham pleading filed by a counsel with no standing before the Court, as his appearance was not in accordance with the Rules. This motion did not interrupt the period for the finality of the Court’s resolution dismissing the petition for review. Consequently, the MeTC decision had become final and executory, and its execution should proceed without delay. The Supreme Court ordered the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 32, to execute its final and executory decision in the ejectment case.