G.R. No. 93756 ; March 22, 1991
ANDRES DY and GLORIA DY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE ZEUS G. ABROGAR, HONORABLE FELICIDAD NAVARRIO-QUIAMBAO, SHERIFF ERNESTO ADAN, CLERK OF COURT CARLOS N. AGUILLON, JR., and RAMON V. ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ramon V. Roxas filed an ejectment case against petitioners Andres and Gloria Dy before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, which was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The MeTC ruled in favor of Roxas, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay rentals. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC decision in toto on February 22, 1990. The RTC, citing the Rule on Summary Procedure, declared its decision immediately executory.
The records were remanded to the MeTC. On February 23, 1990, private respondent filed an ex-parte motion for immediate execution, which was granted the same day. The sheriff, assisted by policemen, forcibly ejected petitioners from the property on February 24, 1990. Crucially, this execution was carried out before petitioners were served a copy of the RTC decision. Petitioners received their copy only on March 6, 1990. They filed an urgent motion to quash the writ of execution, which was denied. Their subsequent petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE

May the immediate execution of a Regional Trial Court judgment in a summary ejectment case be validly effected prior to service of a copy of said judgment on the losing party?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that immediate execution cannot be validly effected without prior service of the judgment on the losing party. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to due process must be observed even in cases governed by summary procedure. While Section 18 of the Rule on Summary Procedure states that an RTC decision in such cases is “immediately executory,” this does not dispense with the basic requirement of notice.
The legal logic is anchored on the interplay of procedural rules. Execution issues only upon a final judgment (Rule 39, Section 1, Rules of Court), and a judgment becomes final only after the reglementary period to appeal has lapsed. This period begins to run only from the moment the party is duly notified of the judgment. Therefore, to determine if execution may rightfully issue, there must first be proof of service of the judgment to ascertain whether the appeal period has expired. Executing a judgment before such notice deprives the losing party of the opportunity to exercise appellate remedies and constitutes a denial of due process. Consequently, the execution proceedings conducted prior to notice were invalid.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition. It found that petitioners, after belatedly receiving the RTC decision on March 6, 1990, failed to perfect a timely appeal within the reglementary period. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Thus, while the execution was procedurally flawed, the RTC judgment had already attained finality, barring further relief for the petitioners.