Case Digest: BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. HON. AMALIK P. ESPINOSA, et.al.

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v.
HON. AMALIK P. ESPINOSA, et.al.

                In a complaint for ejectment, docketed as G.R. No. 132051, private respondent Tala Realty Services Corp. (Tala) sought to eject petitioner Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BFSMB) from its branch site in Iloilo City wherein Court ordered BFSMB to vacate the subject premises, restore possession thereof to Tala and to pay the rental up to the time it vacated the premises. BFSMB then filed for a motion for reconsideration.

               Pending the resolution of the case, En Banc division rendered a decision over the same case, G.R. No. 137533, which involved BFSMB‘s eviction from its branch site in Malolos, Bulacan wherein the Court held that is not liable for unpaid rentals since both parties having participated in the deceptive creation of a trust to circumvent the real estate investment limit under the General Banking Act. It held that Tala, however had the right to eject BFSMB from the Bulacan property on the ground of expiration of contract.
The motion for reconsideration of G.R. No. 132051 by BFSMB was subsequently granted by the Court and held that Tala should not be allowed to collect rent from it. Such decisions were recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment having become final and executory.

             Subsequently, Tala filed with the MTC in Iloilo City, a motion for execution of the Supreme Court‘s Decision in G.R. No. 132051. Conformably with the disposition of said decision, Tala prayed that BFSMB be ordered to vacate the Iloilo branch office and to restore possession thereof to it, to pay the monthly rental computed from April 1994 up to the time BFSMB vacates the premises, and to pay costs.

           At the appointed time for the hearing of the Motion for Execution, BFSMB verbally opposed the motion because the said Decision had been superseded by its decision granting the bank‘s motion for reconsideration. However, despite the objection, respondent Judge Malik Espinosa granted the motion for execution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Espinosa acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the motion for execution

HELD:

Unquestionably, Judge Espinosa has the power to rule on Tala‘s Motion for Execution following Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. It further provides that if the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.

Judge Espinosa overstepped his authority, however, when he ordered the execution of the Court‘s Decision of June 25, 2001, the same not being the final resolution of BFSMB‘s appeal as contemplated in the second paragraph of above-quoted Rule 39.

On its face, the Entry of Judgment in G.R. No. 132051 showed that two Resolutions subsequent to the June 25, 2001 Decision were also certified as having become final and executory. Clearly apparent from the chronology of dispositions is the fact that the June 25, 2001 Decision was later modified by the July 24, 2002 Resolution which, in turn, was reconsidered and set aside by the September 3, 2003 Resolution. This matter was brought to the attention of Judge Espinosa by BFSMB during the hearing of respondent‘s Motion for Execution on February 26, 2004.