GR 147328; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147328 ; February 20, 2002
Spouses ANTON and EILEEN LIM, petitioners, vs. UNI-TAN MARKETING CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioners Spouses Lim before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. The MTC ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC and dismissed the complaint. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the MTC decision was executed, leading to a levy and sale of the petitioners’ properties, as they failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution.
Dissatisfied with the RTC’s subsequent order which declined to award damages for the execution, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA outrightly dismissed this petition because the petitioners failed to attach a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed MTC decision, as required by the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review due to the petitioners’ failure to attach a duplicate original or certified true copy of the MTC decision, and whether the petitioners are entitled to damages for the execution of the MTC judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA resolutions. On procedural grounds, the attachment of a duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed judgment is a mandatory requirement under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that this requirement is jurisdictional, and non-compliance warrants the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioners’ argument of substantial compliance was rejected; the rule is strict and allows no exception, as its purpose is to enable the appellate court to verify the factual and legal bases of the lower court’s decision.
On the substantive issue of damages, the Court ruled that the execution was lawful at the time it was carried out. The petitioners’ failure to file a supersedeas bond to stay the execution was fatal. In the absence of proof of bad faith on the part of the respondent, the sheriff, or the judge who ordered the execution, no liability for damages attaches. The legal principle of damnum absque injuria applies—a loss or damage without a legal injury. The petitioners’ own neglect in availing of the legal remedy to stay execution was the cause of their alleged damages. Therefore, the RTC correctly refused to award them.