G.R. No. 173616
June 25, 2014
AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioner, (ATO), Petitioner, vs. HON. CORT OF APPEA!S (NINETEENTH "I#ISION) $n% &ERNIE G. 'IAE, Respondents. 'IAE, Respondents. Ponene* !EONAR"O+"E CASTRO, J.
F$-* •
•
MTCC of Iloilo City: ATO filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Miaue. ATO prayed t!att "#$ Mia t!a Miaue ue %e ord ordere ered d to per perman manent ently ly vac vacate ate and pea peacef cefully ully ret return urn to t!e ATO ATO possession of &'' s. m. Refres!ment Parlor and t!e (#')suare meter Restaurant*+ift !op "-$ Miaue %e ordered to pay t!e ATO t!e amount representing unpaid space rental and concessionaire privilege fees. MTCC decision: ruled in favor of ATO vacate t!e aforesaid properties and to pay unpaid rental and concessionaire privilege fees
•
RTC: affirmed MTCC decision
•
CA "CA)+.R. "CA)+.R. P /o. 012(1$: dismissed petition, affirmed affirmed RTC
•
C: no reversi%le error in t!e Court of Appeals 3ecision
Te /oee%n- on eeuon •
•
•
•
•
•
As an incident of CA)+.R. P /o. 012(1, t!e Court of Appeals issued on 4e%ruary -0, -''2 a temporary restraining order "TRO$ effective for a period of 5' days and reuired Miaue to post a %ond in t!e amount ofP#'','''.''. After t!e lapse of t!e TRO, t!e ATO filed an urgent motion for t!e e6ecution of t!e RTC 3ecision pursuant to ection -#, Rule 0' of t!e Rules of Court7 RTC granted t!e ATO8s motion and issued 9rit of e6ecution dated August #5, -''2 ;owever, t!e CA issued a Resolution dated August #&, -''2 ordering t!e issuance of a writ of preliminary inune -, -''?; Miaue filed MR wit! prayer to set aside e6ecution and prayed t!at CA order RTC une #2, -''?$: ordered s!eriffs to desist from e6ecuting MTCC and RTC
•
•
•
;owever, on >une #?, -''?, %efore t!e concerned s!eriffs received a copy of t!e Resolution dated >une #2, -''?, t!e said s!eriffs implemented t!e writ of e6ecution and delivered t!e possession of t!e following premises to t!e ATO ;owever, Miaue su%seuently regained possession of t!e said premises on t!e strengt! of t!e Court of Appeals8 Resolution dated >une #2, -''? In t!e end, Miaue still lost t!e case in CA as stated a%ove. T!ereafter, ATO filed wit! t!e RTC a motion for t!e revival of t!e writs of e6ecution "dated August #5, -''2 and >une -, -''?$.
'$ue-- $e/ o -$8$e - $-e* A ne9 $-e n e Cou o: A//e$- (CA+ G.R. CE&+SP No. 01603) •
As stated a%ove, Miaue appealed to C %ut t!e latter only affirmed CA8s decision. ;ence, on Marc! -&, -''5, Miaue filed a petition for certiorari "wit! prayer for issuance of TRO and*or writ of preliminary in
•
•
Run o: CA n CA+GR CE&+SP No. 01603* )
Issued writ of preliminary in
)
Miaue !as a right in esse to %e protected and t!e acts against w!ic! t!e in
)
Miaue appears to !ave a clear legal rig!t to !old on to t!e premises leased %y !im from ATO at least until suc! time w!en !e s!all !ave %een duly e
)
respondent une #, -''? !ad already %een partially implemented
(. CA +.R. P /o. 012(1 and CA)+.R. C=)P /o. '#5'( are e6actly t!e same, Miaue !as committed forum s!opping Arguments of Miaue: 2. RTC !ad no une #, -''? %ecause t!e said court already lost its
writ of e6ecution of
