G.R. No. 203022, December 3, 2014.
ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. RONALDO B. MARTIN, Presiding Judge and ROLANDO PALMARES, Deputy Sheriff, both of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73, and NATALIA REALTY, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a prior case (Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA), ordered the issuance of an alias writ of execution to grant petitioner Antonio Martinez possession of portions of land. In compliance, the RTC issued an alias writ of execution on February 20, 2004. On March 30, 2004, Deputy Sheriff Rolando Palmares executed a Certificate of Delivery of Possession, attesting that the property was delivered to petitioner and his co-parties, which petitioner acknowledged by his signature. In an Order dated July 27, 2004, the RTC directed the sheriff to oust any remaining guards or developers of respondent Natalia Realty, Inc. from the premises. The Deputy Sheriff reported on August 23, 2004, that the alias writ had been fully satisfied. More than two years later, on October 17, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of another alias writ, alleging respondent’s refusal to comply. The RTC denied this motion in an Omnibus Order dated September 10, 2007, finding the prior writ fully satisfied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but, anticipating denial or delay, filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court to compel the RTC to issue another alias writ. The Supreme Court remanded the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied it. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus for lack of merit.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel the performance of a ministerial duty when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Petitioner filed the mandamus petition while his motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s Omnibus Order was still pending resolution. Absent any showing of recognized exceptions to the rule requiring the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration, the petition for mandamus was premature and subject to dismissal. Furthermore, the February 20, 2004 alias writ had already been fully implemented, as evidenced by the Certificate of Delivery of Possession signed by petitioner. Therefore, there was no need to issue another alias writ. The proper remedy for any alleged subsequent refusal by the respondent to comply would be to initiate contempt proceedings, not to seek another writ of execution via mandamus. The petition was denied, and the CA’s Decision and Resolution were affirmed.