In Air Transportation Office (ATO) vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Bernie G. Miaque, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgments in ejectment cases are immediately executory, even while an appeal is pending. This means that a lower court’s order to vacate a property can be enforced without delay, safeguarding the rights of the lawful possessor. The Court emphasized that preliminary injunctions against such executions should be granted with utmost caution and only when the applicant demonstrates a clear legal right to the property, a right the respondent failed to establish.

When Appeals Can’t Halt Eviction: Examining Ejectment Case Execution

The dispute began when the Air Transportation Office (ATO) filed an ejectment case against Bernie G. Miaque in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, seeking to recover possession of several premises at the Iloilo Airport. The MTCC ruled in favor of the ATO, ordering Miaque to vacate the properties and pay unpaid rental and concessionaire fees. Miaque appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, which affirmed the MTCC’s decision in its entirety. Unsuccessful, Miaque further elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, where his petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court denied Miaque’s subsequent petition, solidifying the ATO’s right to regain possession.

The core issue arose during the execution phase. Despite the MTCC and RTC decisions favoring the ATO, Miaque repeatedly sought to delay the execution of the judgment. He obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals, which temporarily halted the ATO’s efforts to enforce the RTC decision. The ATO then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the Court of Appeals’ resolutions that granted the TRO and preliminary injunction. The ATO argued that the Court of Appeals had overstepped its authority by obstructing the execution of a final and executory judgment.

The Supreme Court examined Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which dictates the immediate enforceability of RTC judgments in ejectment cases. The court underscored that such judgments are immediately executory, irrespective of any pending appeals. This reflects a deliberate policy choice to prevent injustice to the lawful possessor of the property. This principle is further reinforced by Section 4, Rule 39 and Section 8(b), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the execution of the RTC’s judgment under Section 21, Rule 70 is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one, and may be compelled by mandamus. Thus, The RTC was validly exercising its jurisdiction when it issued the writs of execution.

Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. – The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished between discretionary execution under Section 2, Rule 39, and the ministerial duty to execute under Section 21, Rule 70. Discretionary execution requires the trial court to still have jurisdiction over the case, while execution under Rule 70 is not stayed by appeal and can be invoked even when the case is pending in the Court of Appeals. However, the Court clarified that the Court of Appeals retains the power to stay the writ of execution should circumstances warrant such action. This authority, however, must be exercised cautiously and only when substantial rights are at stake.

The Court elaborated on the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction, emphasizing that it is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only when actual and existing substantial rights are threatened. In this case, the Court found that Miaque had failed to demonstrate any clear legal right to continue possessing the premises. Prior decisions from the MTCC, RTC, and Court of Appeals had consistently upheld the ATO’s right to possession and Miaque’s obligation to vacate. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was deemed to be an abuse of discretion. In Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc., the court stated that, in granting or dismissing an application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the court must state in its order the findings and conclusions based on the evidence and the law.

In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by one who seeks an injunctive writ, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolution dated May 30, 2006, granting Miaque’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The Court emphasized that the Court of Appeals disregarded the immediately executory nature of judgments in ejectment cases, as well as the ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of execution. The Court directed the Court of Appeals to expedite the resolution of CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603, underscoring the need for prompt action given the protracted nature of the dispute.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that restrained the execution of a final and executory judgment in an ejectment case.
What does “immediately executory” mean in ejectment cases?	“Immediately executory” means that the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) can be enforced right away, even if the defendant appeals to a higher court. This ensures that the lawful possessor can regain possession of the property without undue delay.
Can the Court of Appeals ever stop the execution of an ejectment judgment?	Yes, the Court of Appeals has the power to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the execution of an ejectment judgment if circumstances warrant it. However, this power must be exercised with great caution and only when there is a clear showing of a legal right being violated.
What must someone prove to get a preliminary injunction?	To obtain a preliminary injunction, the applicant must demonstrate a clear legal right that is being violated, and that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The applicant must also show that the balance of equities favors the issuance of the injunction.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Miaque in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled against Miaque because he failed to demonstrate any clear legal right to continue possessing the premises, especially in light of prior court decisions affirming the ATO’s right to possession. The Court of Appeals was deemed to have acted with grave abuse of discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction without a sufficient legal basis.
What is the difference between discretionary and ministerial execution?	Discretionary execution occurs when the trial court has the power to decide whether or not to execute a judgment pending appeal, while ministerial execution is a mandatory duty of the court to execute a judgment that is immediately executory under the law. In ejectment cases, the execution of the RTC’s judgment is a ministerial duty.
What is the effect of Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court?	Section 21, Rule 70 makes the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases immediately executory, regardless of any pending appeals. This provision ensures that the rightful possessor of the property can promptly regain possession, preventing injustice and delay.
How does this ruling affect landlords and tenants in the Philippines?	This ruling strengthens the rights of landlords by ensuring that they can promptly enforce ejectment judgments, preventing tenants from unduly delaying the process through appeals. It also reinforces the principle that preliminary injunctions should not be used to frustrate the execution of valid court orders.

This case underscores the importance of the immediate execution of judgments in ejectment cases to protect the rights of lawful possessors. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the limited circumstances under which a preliminary injunction may be granted to stay such execution, ensuring that the process is not unduly delayed.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO) VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (NINETEENTH DIVISION) AND BERNIE G. MIAQUE, G.R. No. 173616, June 25, 2014