G.R. Nos. L-48376-85 and L-63387 July 16, 1984
BALAGTAS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., et al., and DOMINGA MAPA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Balagtas Realty Corporation filed ejectment cases against several lessees in the Pasay City Court, which ruled in its favor. The lessees appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). This Court, in a 1982 decision (114 SCRA 28), ordered the immediate execution of the City Court’s judgment pending appeal. On December 21, 1982, however, the presiding CFI Judge, respondent Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., reversed the City Court’s decision and dismissed the complaints. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and for the issuance of writs of ejectment pursuant to this Court’s 1982 order. Respondent Judge denied both motions, ruling that execution pending appeal was no longer appropriate after his reversal of the appealed judgment. In a separate but related case (G.R. No. L-63387), involving respondent Dominga Mapa, the City Court’s judgment had become final. Respondent Judge initially dismissed Mapa’s petition for certiorari challenging that judgment but later reinstated it.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Court’s ejectment decision and in refusing to execute this Court’s 1982 order for immediate execution. A subsidiary issue involves the propriety of reinstating a certiorari petition after a final judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. It held that respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The core of the ejectment cases was the validity of a rental increase implemented via a letter-contract (Exhibit “A”). The City Court correctly found that the lessees, by continuing their occupancy after receiving notice of the new rates, impliedly accepted the terms, making Exhibit “A” the binding lease agreement under Articles 1320 and 1321 of the Civil Code. Respondent Judge erred in disregarding this factual finding, which was supported by evidence, including payment records of other tenants. His conclusion that the increase was unreasonable constituted a reversible error. Regarding the execution of the 1982 order, once this Court had issued a final and executory directive for immediate execution pending appeal, it was ministerial for the respondent Judge to comply. His refusal to do so after rendering a contrary decision was a defiance of a superior court’s lawful order. In G.R. No. L-63387, the Court found that respondent Judge’s order reinstating Dominga Mapa’s certiorari petition was issued without legal basis, as the City Court’s judgment had become final and certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the CFI decision, affirmed the City Court’s judgment as modified (disallowing liquidated damages), and ordered the execution of the final judgments.