GR 131237; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131237; July 31, 2000
ROSENDO T. UY, MEDRING SIOCO, BOBBY BERNARD S. UY and LUISA T. UY, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, as Judge of Branch 101, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; BENITO PALOMADO, PIO BERMEJO and SANTOS NGALIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners won consolidated ejectment cases in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Private respondents appealed three cases to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 101, presided by respondent Judge Pedro T. Santiago. On July 15, 1997, the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal. Private respondents opposed, having perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals and complied with the requirements to stay execution under the old rules: filing a supersedeas bond and making periodic deposits of rentals. Respondent Judge denied the motion on August 12, 1997, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration on October 7, 1997, citing private respondents’ compliance with these stay requirements.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution pending appeal for an RTC decision in an ejectment case that has been appealed to the Court of Appeals.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Mandamus, set aside the respondent Judge’s orders, and directed the immediate issuance of the writ. The legal logic hinges on the clear distinction between Rule 70, Section 19 and Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 19 applies to ejectment cases pending appeal with the RTC (from the MeTC), allowing a defendant to stay execution by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making periodic deposits. However, Section 21 governs the scenario after the RTC has decided the appeal. It explicitly states that the RTC judgment “shall be immediately executory,” without any provision for a stay of execution even if an appeal is perfected to a higher court. The Court, citing Northcastle Properties & Estate Corp. v. Judge Paas and Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Hatab, held that this language is mandatory and ministerial. The purpose is to align with the summary nature of ejectment proceedings designed to restore possession swiftly. Private respondents’ due process argument was rejected, as execution pending appeal does not adjudicate the merits of the possession claim nor render the appeal moot; it merely restores possession during the appeal’s pendency. Since the law imposes a clear duty on the judge to order immediate execution, and he unlawfully neglected it, mandamus is the proper remedy.