G.R. No. L-79403 and G.R. No. L-78223, December 19, 1988
EMETERIO M. MOZAR, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ERNESTO MADAMBA, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA and HEIRS OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR., respondents. / HEIRS OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR. and GUBALLA MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioners vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES RUFINO B. RISMA and TECLA GOTICO-RISMA, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from a property dispute over a building in Manila. The late Francisco Guballa, Sr. was the registered owner. Due to a labor case, the property was levied and sold at auction to BUSCOPE Labor Union to satisfy a judgment. BUSCOPE’s president later sold the property to Atty. Rufino Risma, who then leased it to Emeterio Mozar. However, the Deputy Minister of Labor subsequently annulled the auction sale, restoring full ownership to Guballa, Sr., as the judgment debt had been satisfied. Despite this annulment, the Risma spouses filed an action for a writ of possession in the Court of First Instance (CFI).
Guballa, Sr. moved to dismiss the CFI case, arguing the Labor Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the execution sale matter and that the Rismas had no cause of action after the sale’s annulment. The CFI denied the motion and later granted the writ of possession to the Rismas. Guballa appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but his appeal was dismissed for procedural reasons. Concurrently, Mozar, the lessee, filed a separate petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to challenge the enforcement of a writ of execution in an ejectment case related to the property, which the RTC denied. The CA affirmed this denial.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether the CFI had jurisdiction to entertain the action for a writ of possession filed by the Risma spouses; and (2) Whether Mozar’s petition had merit.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Guballa heirs in G.R. No. 78223 and dismissed Mozar’s petition in G.R. No. 79403. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that the CFI had no jurisdiction over the action for a writ of possession. The annulment of the execution sale was decreed by the Deputy Minister of Labor in the exercise of the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) exclusive jurisdiction over the execution of its judgments. The propriety of the sale and its subsequent nullification pertained to the execution phase of the labor case, over which the labor tribunal retained jurisdiction. Therefore, the CFI should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The CA’s dismissal of Guballa’s appeal on procedural grounds was reversed, and the CFI case was ordered dismissed.
Regarding Mozar’s petition, the Court found it moot and academic. The ejectment case against him had already been decided with finality, and a writ of execution had been enforced, rendering his petition seeking to prohibit that enforcement without purpose. More significantly, the Court censured Mozar and his counsel for abuse of court processes. By filing multiple and repetitious petitions, they engaged in conduct that delayed the execution of a final judgment. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty is to act with candor and good fidelity to the courts, not to use procedural maneuvers to subvert justice. Treble costs were assessed against Mozar, to be paid by his counsel.