G.R. No. 94733 February 17, 1993.
MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN, LAGUNA, represented by Hon. Bayani Alonte, Municipal Mayor of Biñan, Laguna, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JESUS M. GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Biñan, Laguna filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 2473) against private respondent Jesus M. Garcia in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Biñan. The municipality alleged it needed the leased premises for government offices and was no longer amenable to renewing the 25-year lease contract. Garcia contended the original 25-year term had not expired and, assuming it had, he had an exclusive option to renew for another 25 years. He filed a “Motion for Preliminary Hearing as if a Motion to Dismiss Has Been Filed” on the ground the complaint stated no cause of action. The MTC rendered judgment on October 26, 1989, ordering Garcia to vacate. Garcia appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. B-3201. The municipality filed a motion for execution pending appeal in the RTC. On December 14, 1989, the RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution the next day. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s order for execution pending appeal on the ground that the municipality failed to furnish him a copy of the motion, contrary to Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The CA, in its decision of May 31, 1990, granted the petition. It set aside the RTC’s order for being violative of the notice requirement. Additionally, the CA annulled the MTC’s judgment in the ejectment case, ruling it was contrary to the lease agreement. The municipality’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted beyond its jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding by annulling the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court on the merits of the ejectment case, which was pending appeal before the Regional Trial Court and not directly raised as an issue in the certiorari petition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding involving an incident (the order for execution pending appeal) to rule on the merits of the main ejectment case itself, which was not on appeal before it. The sole issue properly raised in the certiorari petition was the validity of the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal. The CA’s authority was limited to determining whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing that order. Any error committed by the MTC in its judgment was an error of judgment or procedure, correctible by ordinary appeal to the RTC, not by certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA decision insofar as it annulled the MTC judgment and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.