GR 31351; (October, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31351 October 26, 1973
REMEDIOS T. FUENTES, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, and PATRICIA LIZARES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios T. Fuentes filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6973) against respondents Patricia Lizares and her husband in the Pasay City Court for unpaid rentals. The City Court rendered a decision on December 27, 1966, ordering Lizares to pay the rental arrears. Lizares filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The Rules of Court require a defendant appealing an ejectment judgment to deposit periodic rentals during the appeal and file a supersedeas bond to stay execution. Lizares paid the appellate docket fee and filed an appeal bond but failed to make the required periodic deposits of current rentals.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent CFI Judge gravely abused his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for execution of the City Court’s judgment despite the appellant’s failure to comply with the mandatory deposit requirement for supersedeas.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and ministerial nature of the deposit requirement under Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. An appeal in ejectment cases does not stay execution unless the appellant perfects the appeal, files a supersedeas bond, and deposits the current rentals as they fall due. Compliance with these requisites is indispensable for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction to stay the writ of execution. The duty of the court to order execution upon non-compliance is ministerial, not discretionary. In this case, respondent Lizares’s failure to make the periodic deposits was a fatal flaw. Consequently, the respondent Judge had no discretion to deny the motion for execution; his refusal constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the rule is to protect the plaintiff from further loss during the appeal’s pendency. Therefore, the CFI orders were set aside, and the respondent Judge was ordered to issue the writ of execution for the City Court’s judgment.