ALPA-PCM, Inc. vs. Bulasao

RTC decisions in unlawful detainer cases rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction are immediately executory under Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, requiring no "good reasons," bond, or further justification for execution to proceed, even if an appeal has been filed with the CA.

ALPA-PCM, Inc. was the defendant in an unlawful detainer complaint filed by the Bulasaos before the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. Unlawful detainer actions are governed primarily by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and suppletorily by the Rules of Court. The statutory framework governing execution of RTC appellate decisions in such cases differs from the general execution-pending-appeal rules under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in that the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure mandate immediate executory effect without qualification.

In 2004, the Bulasaos — Vincent, Juliet, and Susana, all surnamed Bulasao — filed an action for unlawful detainer against ALPA-PCM before the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. The MTC ruled in favor of the Bulasaos on May 31, 2006, ordering ALPA-PCM to vacate the subject leased premises and peacefully turn over the same to the plaintiffs. ALPA-PCM appealed to the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62, which affirmed the MTC's ruling on July 31, 2007, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

On August 13, 2007, the Bulasaos filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Three days later, on August 16, 2007, ALPA-PCM filed its motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2007. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2007, ALPA-PCM filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition/Appeal, intending to seek further recourse before the CA. On November 21, 2007, the RTC granted the Bulasaos' motion for execution. ALPA-PCM sought reconsideration of that order, but the RTC denied it on February 5, 2008, and subsequently issued a writ of execution on February 12, 2008.

ALPA-PCM questioned the RTC's orders granting execution and the writ of execution itself before the CA via a separate certiorari petition, alleging that the RTC's orders were null and void because the filing of its appeal with the CA had deprived the RTC of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition on January 6, 2011, finding no grave abuse of discretion and declaring that the RTC had power to grant execution pending appeal as part of its residual jurisdiction under Section 8, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. ALPA-PCM then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied on July 6, 2011. ALPA-PCM moved for reconsideration, reiterating its arguments and adding that the RTC acted with undue haste because the Bulasaos' motion for execution preceded its own motion for reconsideration.

• Good Reasons Required: Petitioner argued that under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, there must be good reasons to justify execution pending appeal, and the RTC failed to state such good reasons.
• Loss of Jurisdiction: Petitioner alleged that the RTC's orders authorizing execution were null and void because the filing of its appeal with the CA deprived the RTC of jurisdiction to issue the orders.
• Premature Motion for Execution: Petitioner maintained that the Bulasaos' motion for execution was premature because it was filed on August 13, 2007, before ALPA-PCM filed its motion for reconsideration on August 16, 2007, citing JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc. for the proposition that execution pending appeal is improper where a motion for reconsideration is pending.
• Undue Haste: Petitioner alleged that the RTC acted with undue haste in granting the Bulasaos' motion for writ of execution.

• Residual Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC retained jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal despite ALPA-PCM's filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition with the CA.
• Good Reasons Requirement: Whether the RTC was required to state "good reasons" under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to justify execution pending appeal in an unlawful detainer case.
• Prematurity of Motion for Execution: Whether the Bulasaos' motion for execution was premature because it was filed before ALPA-PCM's motion for reconsideration.

• Residual Jurisdiction: Yes. The RTC retained residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal because the CA had not yet given due course to any petition for review; ALPA-PCM had filed only a motion for extension of time, not the petition itself.
• Good Reasons Requirement: No. Under Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, RTC decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory without qualification, requiring no "good reasons," bond, or further justification.
• Prematurity of Motion for Execution: No. A prevailing party may file a motion for execution before the adverse party files a motion for reconsideration; the RTC is only precluded from acting on it until the motion for reconsideration is resolved, which the RTC observed here.

• Residual Jurisdiction: Section 8, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court grants the RTC residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal before the CA gives due course to the petition for review. The CA can give due course only after a petition for review is actually filed and the required comment or pleading is submitted or the period therefor expires. When the RTC granted the Bulasaos' motion on November 21, 2007, ALPA-PCM had filed only a motion for extension of time on November 13, 2007 — not the petition itself. In the absence of any petition actually filed, the CA could not have given due course, and the RTC thus retained residual jurisdiction to authorize execution.

• Good Reasons Requirement: Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure expressly decrees that the decision of the RTC in unlawful detainer cases "shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom." This provision contains no qualification requiring "good reasons" or a bond, in contrast to the general execution-pending-appeal rule under Section 2, Rule 39. The rationale is the objective of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. This objective itself provides the "good reason" that justifies immediate execution if the standards of Section 2, Rule 39 were considered applicable.

• Prematurity of Motion for Execution: The ruling in JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc. does not prevent the prevailing party from filing a motion for execution before the adverse party files a motion for reconsideration. It only precludes the RTC from acting on the motion for execution until it has resolved the motion for reconsideration. The RTC complied with this rule, granting the Bulasaos' motion only after denying ALPA-PCM's motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2007. The motion for execution was therefore not premature.

• Residual Jurisdiction of the RTC under Rule 42 — Under Section 8, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the RTC retains residual jurisdiction to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties, including ordering execution pending appeal, before the CA gives due course to a petition for review. The CA can give due course only when a petition for review has actually been filed and the required comment or pleading has been submitted or the period therefor has expired. A mere motion for extension of time to file a petition does not constitute the filing of a petition and does not divest the RTC of residual jurisdiction.

• Immediate Executory Nature of RTC Decisions in Ejectment Cases — Under Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, RTC decisions in unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction are immediately executory, without prejudice to further appeal. This rule is unqualified: it requires no "good reasons," no bond, and no further justification for execution to proceed. The expeditious and inexpensive determination objective of the Summary Rules supplies the inherent justification.

• Filing of Motion for Execution vs. Motion for Reconsideration — A prevailing party may file a motion for execution before the adverse party files a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. The prohibition is on the RTC acting on the motion for execution while a motion for reconsideration is pending; the RTC must first resolve the motion for reconsideration before acting on the motion for execution.

• "The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has decreed the immediately executory nature of decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, involving cases falling under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. It requires no further justification or even 'good reasons' for the RTC to authorize execution, even if an appeal has already been filed before the CA." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the unqualified mandate of Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure that overrides the general "good reasons" requirement of Section 2, Rule 39.

• "The rationale for this is the objective of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases governed by it. This objective provides the 'good reason' that justifies immediate execution of the decision, if the standards of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on execution pending appeal, as what ALPA-PCM insists, are considered." — This passage explains the policy basis for the immediate executory rule and reconciles it with the general execution-pending-appeal framework.

• "The ruling does not prevent the prevailing party from filing a motion for execution until after the adverse party has filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. The RTC, however, is precluded from acting on the motion for execution until it has resolved the motion for reconsideration." — This clarifies the scope of the JP Latex doctrine, distinguishing the timing of filing from the timing of judicial action.

• JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc., G.R. No. 177121, March 16, 2009, 581 SCRA 553 — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that execution pending appeal is improper where a motion for reconsideration is pending. The Court distinguished this ruling, clarifying that it does not bar the filing of a motion for execution before a motion for reconsideration is filed; it only precludes the RTC from acting on the motion for execution until the motion for reconsideration is resolved.

• Section 8, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Grants the RTC residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal before the CA gives due course to a petition for review, provided the requirements of Section 2, Rule 39 are observed. Applied to hold that the RTC retained jurisdiction because no petition for review had been filed with the CA; only a motion for extension of time had been filed.

• Section 6, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Provides that the CA may give due course to a petition for review when it finds prima facie that the lower court committed an error of fact or law warranting reversal or modification, but only after the filing of the comment or other required pleading or the expiration of the period therefor. Applied to explain why the CA could not have given due course when no petition had been filed.

• Section 2, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Governs execution pending appeal in general, requiring "good reasons" to be stated in the order. The Court held this provision inapplicable to ejectment cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which provides its own immediately executory rule.

• Section 21, Revised Rules on Summary Procedure — Provides that the decision of the RTC in civil cases governed by the Summary Rules, including unlawful detainer and forcible entry, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to further appeal. Applied as the controlling provision rendering the RTC decision immediately executory without need of "good reasons" or a bond.

• Section 3, Rule 142, Rules of Court — Authorizes the imposition of double or treble costs where an action or appeal is found to be frivolous, payable by the attorney if so ordered. Applied to impose treble costs on ALPA-PCM's counsel for filing a frivolous motion for reconsideration manifestly intended for delay.

Carpio, A.T. (Chairperson), Perez, J.P., Sereno, M.L.P.A., and Reyes, B.L. — all concurred.