G.R. No. 99845 February 4, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF PAOMBONG, BULACAN and CONFRADIA NUESTRA SEÑORA DELA CORREA, represented by ANTONIO CORONEL, BENJAMIN PASCUAL, ADRIANO BONDOC and ARMANDO DE JESUS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and L.K. TRADING, INC., respondents. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC., (RCBM) and BISHOP CIRILO R. ALMARIO, JR., intervenors.

FACTS

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. (RCBM), a corporation sole and registered owner of a 118-hectare fishpond covered by OCT No. 589, leased the property to private respondent L.K. Trading, Inc. for three years starting October 12, 1987. On September 10, 1990, Bishop Cirilo Almario renewed the lease for another three years. Prior to this renewal, the Cofradia Nuestra Señora Dela Correa informed Bishop Almario of its intent to take over the fishpond’s management after the lease expired on October 11, 1990. Upon the lease’s renewal, petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of title, sum of money, accounting, and damages with a prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction against RCBM and Bishop Almario. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on October 11, 1990, enjoining the defendants from executing a new lease and exercising acts of ownership. On November 29, 1990, the trial court issued an order directing defendants to desist from disturbing petitioners in operating the fishpond, but petitioners were ordered not to harvest fish without informing the court. That same evening, petitioners forcibly entered and took over the fishpond. Private respondent and Bishop Almario filed motions for reconsideration, and private respondent subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted a temporary restraining order on December 19, 1990, and on April 11, 1991, rendered a decision setting aside the trial court’s orders, ordering petitioners to desist from taking possession until ownership is finally adjudicated, and remanding the case for re-raffle and trial on the merits. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 7, 1991, denied the Petition for Review, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied. Subsequently, private respondent filed a Motion to Direct Immediate Execution of Judgment. During execution proceedings before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Malolos, Bulacan, a certain Mr. Rodrigo Bagtas filed a motion for intervention, claiming to be a lessee of petitioners and requesting retention of possession to harvest fish. The trial court, in an Order dated February 14, 1992, granted execution but allowed intervenor Bagtas retention until he harvested all fish to recover his investments as a sower/planter in good faith. Private respondent moved for reconsideration and for a “partial take-over.” The trial court, in an Order dated August 11, 1992, denied the motion for reconsideration and granted private respondent’s motion for partial take-over of unstocked portions. In an Order dated September 30, 1992, the trial court directed the parties to submit a sketch plan for partitioning. Private respondent then filed a Very Urgent Motion with the Supreme Court to set aside the trial court’s orders and to direct immediate execution.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing intervention by Rodrigo Bagtas during the execution stage and in issuing orders inconsistent with the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s Orders dated February 14, 1992, August 11, 1992, and September 30, 1992, to the extent they were inconsistent with the final Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court committed a clear and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in allowing intervention at the execution stage after the case had been decided and attained finality. Intervention is permitted only before or during trial under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court. The trial court’s orders, which allowed Bagtas to retain possession and harvest fish, contravened the Court of Appeals’ final decision, which ordered petitioners and all persons claiming rights under them to desist from taking possession, management, and administration of the fishpond until ownership is finally adjudicated. The Supreme Court made permanent the temporary restraining order it had issued, directed the trial court to issue a writ of execution consistent with the Court of Appeals’ decision, and ordered the Philippine National Police to assist in enforcement.