VOL.

387,AUGUST13,2002
239
Manuelvs.Escalante
G.R.No.134141.August13,2002.*
LEODY MANUEL, petitioner, vs. JOSE and DAISY ESCALANTE,
respondents.
RemedialLaw;Ejectment;Execution;Courthasstressedthedoctrinerequiring
thatnoticebegiventothedefendantinejectmentcases.Timeandagain,thisCourt
hasstressedthedoctrinerequiringthatnoticebegiventothedefendantinejectment
cases.InReforminav.Adriano,wedeclaredthat,theimmediateenforcementofthe
writofejectmentexecutioniscarriedoutbygivingthedefendantnoticeofsuchwrit,
andmakingademandthatdefendantcomplytherewithwithinareasonableperiod,
normallyfromthree(3)tofive(5)days, anditisonlyaftersuchperiodthatthe
sheriffenforcesthewritbythebodilyremovalofthedefendantandhisbelongings.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thedoctrineisbasednotonanyspecificrulebuton
the rudiments of justice and fair play.Contrary to petitioners contention, the
foregoingrulingsapplytothecaseatbar.Thetwocasesweredecidedunderthe
provisionsofthe1964RulesofCourt,invokedbypetitioner.Asstated,thedoctrine
isbasednotonanyspecificrulebutontherudimentsofjusticeandfairplay.It
frownsuponarbitrarinessandoppressiveconductintheexecutionofanotherwise
legitimateact.Itisanamplificationoftheprovisionthat[e]verypersonmust,inthe
exerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties,actwithjustice,give
everyonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionofthe
CourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Vigilio&VigilioLawOfficesforpetitioner.
NicanorB.Gatmaytanforprivaterespondents.
_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

240
240
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Manuelvs.Escalante
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewofthedecisiondatedJanuary22,1998 1andthe
resolutiondatedMay29,19982 oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV
No.48659.
RespondentDaisyEscalantewasthelesseeofaroomonthesecond
floorofthehouseownedbyTriumfoGarces,locatedinNo.1603Indiana
St. Malate,Manila.Thelease was onamonthlybasis.OnAugust 13,
1984,Garcesfiledacomplaintforunlawfuldetainer,docketedasCivil
CaseNo.102100CV,withtheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MTC)ofManila,
BranchXIII,againstrespondentonthegroundofexpirationofthelease
contract and violation of the lease when she subleased the room to
boarders.
OnAugust30,1985,theMTCrenderedadecisioninfavorofTriumfo
Garces,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofthe
plaintiffandagainstthedefendant,orderingthelatter:
1. (a)
andallotherpersonsclaimingrightsunderhertovacatethepremisesknownas
RoomBofaresidentialhousedesignatedasno.1603IndianaSt.Malate,
Manila:
2. (b)
topaytheplaintiffthesumofP3,000.00asandforattorneysfees:and
3. (c)
topaythecostsofthesuit.
Forlackofuttermeritdefendantsanswerwithcounterclaimisherebydismissed.
SOORDERED.3
RespondentfiledaNoticeofAppealbutfailedtopaytherequisiteappeal
fee. Hence,plaintiff filed amotionfor theimmediate execution ofthe
decisionoftheMTC.Themotionwasgrantedandawritofexecutionwas
issued.
_______________

1Rollo,pp.4563;pennedbyAssociateJusticeRomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.;concurredinby

AssociateJusticesAngelinaSandovalGutierrezandOmarU.Amin.
2Ibid.,p.65.

3Record,pp.2425.

241
VOL.387,AUGUST13,2002
 241
Manuelvs.Escalante
At8:30inthemorningofOctober2,1985,petitionerManuelLeody,the
Supervising Sheriff in the Office of the City Sheriff of Manila,
accompaniedbyTriumfoGarcesandthelatterssons,Florence,Rocky
and Rey, went to the room occupied by respondents Daisy and Jose
Escalante and served on them a copy of the writ of execution. He
demanded that respondents immediately vacate the room. Respondents
pleadedwithpetitionertopostponetheenforcementofthewritto2:00in
theafternoonsothatshecanconsultherlawyerandascertainwhetheran
appealhadbeenfiledfromthedecisionoftheMTC,ortofileamotionfor
a temporary restraining order to suspend the execution of the writ.
Petitioneragreedtodefertheimplementationofthewritbutonlyupto
10:00thatmorning.
Respondent failed to see her lawyer but was able to engage a new
counsel,whoforthwithfiledanUrgentMotiontostaytheenforcementof
thewritofexecution.Respondentthereafteraskedpetitionerforfurther
deferment pending the resolution of the Urgent Motion, but Garces
refused. With the help of four laborers, petitioner hauled all of
respondentspersonalbelongingsoutoftheroomanddumpedthemonthe
sidewalk. By 12:00 noon, respondents turned over the premises to
petitioner,whothenturneditovertoGarces.
Meanwhile,respondentslefttheirpossessionsonthesidewalk.At5:00
that afternoon, there was a heavy downpour and all of respondents
belongings were soaked. Subsequently, the MTC denied respondents
UrgentMotiononthegroundthattheyfailedtoperfecttheirappealfrom
saiddecisionwhentheyfailedtopaytherequisitedocketfeeandtoposta
supersedeasbond.4
RespondentsthenwrotealettertoGarcesandpetitionerdemanding
paymentoftheamountofP747,600.00brokendownasfollows:
Salaryoftheguardswatchingthepersonal
belongingsof8persons...P1,200.00dailyin
cludingmealstimes12days............................................

P14,400.00
Valueof50piecesofjewelrylost.....................................
64,000.00
_______________

4Record,p.30.

242
242
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Manuelvs.Escalante
Lossofdailyearning,expensesfortraveling
tolookforaplacetoliveinManilaCityand
incidentalexpensesP1,600.00dailytimes12
days.............................................................................

19,200.00
Lossoftherighttoappeal.........................................
500,000.00
Moraldamagessufferedbythewholefamily...........
150,000.00
TOTAL........................................................
P747,600.005
WhenpetitionerandGarcesrefusedtocomply,respondentsinstituteda
complaintagainstthemfordamagesbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtof
Manila,Branch33,docketedasCivilCaseNo.8533241.Respondents
averred that their eviction was done through intimidation, threats and
coercion,andprayedthatjudgmentberenderedorderingdefendantsto:
1. 1)
PaytheplaintiffsthetotalamountofP1,479,080.00;
2. 2)
PaytheplaintiffsP20,000.00asandforattorneysfeesforhavingbeen
constrainedtoemploylegalservicesofcounseltoprotecttheirrights
andinterests;
3. 3)
PaythelegalinterestontheamountofP1,479,080.00fromthefilingof
thiscomplaintuptothetimetheobligationshallhavebeenfullypaid
pursuanttothedecision;6
Intheiranswer,petitionerandGarcesarguedthatthewritofexecution
wasimplementedpursuanttolawandtheRulesofCourtandthatwhatever
damages were sustained by the respondents were due to their own
negligence.
 OnMay4,1994,theRegionalTrialCourtdismissedthecomplaintand
renderedjudgmentasfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present complaint is hereby ordered
dismissed.
As plaintiffs were not motivated by malice or ill will in filing the present
complaint,defendantscounterclaimislikewisedismissed.7
_______________

5ExhibitB.

6Rollo,p.51.

7Record,pp.6364.

243
VOL.387,AUGUST13,2002
243
Manuelvs.Escalante
RespondentsappealedtotheCourtofAppealsraisingthefollowingissues:
1. (1)
Whetherornottheenforcementofthewritofexecutionwasin
accordancewiththeRulesofCourtandcaselaw;
2. (2)
WhetherornotpetitionerandGarcesareliablefordamagestothe
respondents;
3. (3)
Ifso,whethertherespondentsadducedsufficientevidencetoprovetheir
claimsfordamagesandattorneysfees.
OnJanuary22,1998,theCourtofAppealsrenderedtheassaileddecision,
thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
Inthelightofalltheforegoing,theDecisionoftheCourt aquo dismissingthe
complaint as against Appellee Manuel Leody is hereby REVERSED. Appellee
ManuelLeodyisherebyorderedtopaytoAppellantDaisyEscalantetheamountsof
P20,000.00bywayofmoraldamages,P10,000.00bywayofexemplarydamagesand
P5,000.00bywayofattorneysfees.TheDecisionoftheCourt aquo ishereby
AFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.8
TheCourtofAppealsruledthatthesheriff,followingusualprocedure,
shouldhaveapprisedthedefendantoftheissuancebythecourtofawritof
execution and demanded that the defendant vacate the premises
voluntarily.9Forfailingtodoso,petitionerwasheldliableformoraland
exemplary damages, but only to respondent Daisy Escalante, since
respondent Jose Escalante failed to testify before the Regional Trial
Court.10 The Court of Appeals denied respondents claim for actual
damagesbecausetheywerenotabletoproveandproperlyparticularize
thesame.11Garces,ontheotherhand,wasabsolvedfromliability.
_______________

8Rollo,pp.6263.

9Rollo,p.20.

10TrinidadFranciscov.GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem,7SCRA577(1963).

11CARollo,p.156.

244
244
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Manuelvs.Escalante
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of
AppealsinaResolutiondatedMay29,1998.12
Petitioner thus brought the instant petition for review, assigning the
followingerrors:
I

THE1964REVISEDRULESOFCOURT(UNDERSEC.13,RULE39),NOTTHE
1997RULESONCIVILPROCEDURE(UNDERSEC.10(c)RULE39),ISTHE
LAWAPPLICABLETOTHECASEATBAR.
II

SECTION10(c),RULE39OFTHE1997RULESONCIVILPROCEDURE
HASNORETROACTIVEAPPLICATIONTOTHEINSTANTCASE.
III

THEQUESTIONEDDECISIONANDRESOLUTIONVIOLATETHELAW;
HENCE,VOID.
IV

THERULINGSINREFORMAvs.ADRIANO(189SCRA723)ANDCITY
OF MANILA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (204 SCRA 362) HAVE NO
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO THE PECULIARITY OF THE PRESENT
CASE.
V

ASSUMINGARGUENDOTHATTHE1997RULESONCIVILPROCEDURE
ANDREFORMAvs.ADRIANOHAVERETROACTIVEAPPLICATION,THE
AWARDOFDAMAGESIMPOSEDUPONTHEPETITIONERISEXCESSIVE
ANDTOOHARSH.
PetitionercontendsthattheCourtofAppealserredinapplyingRule39,
Section10(c)ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,consideringthatthe
same was not yet in effect at the time the judgment of eviction was
executedonOctober2,1985.Thesaidprovisionrequiresthesheriffto
givethejudgmentobligorthreedaysto
_______________

12Rollo,p.65.

245
VOL.387,AUGUST13,2002
245
Manuelvs.Escalante
peaceablyvacatethepremisesbeforeoustinghimtherefrom,towit:
SEC.10.Executionofjudgmentsforspecificact.
xxxxxxxxx.
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property.The officer shall demand of the
personagainstwhomthejudgmentforthedeliveryorrestitutionofrealpropertyis
renderedandallpersonsclaimingrightsunderhimtopeaceablyvacatetheproperty
withinthree(3)workingdays,andrestorepossessionthereoftothejudgmentobligee;
otherwise,theofficershalloustallsuchpersonstherefromwiththeassistance,if
necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may be
reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in
possessionofsuchproperty.Anycosts,damages,rentsorprofitsawardedbythe
judgmentshallbesatisfiedinthesamemannerasajudgmentformoney.
Nosuchrequirementwascontainedinthe1964RulesofCourt.Rule39,
Section13oftheoldRulesprovides:
SEC.13. Howexecutionforthedeliveryorrestitutionofpropertyenforced.The
officermustenforceanexecutionforthedeliveryorrestitutionofpropertybyousting
therefrom the person against whom the judgment is rendered and placing the
judgment creditor in possession of such property, and by levying as hereinafter
provideduponsomuchofthepropertyofthejudgmentdebtoraswillsatisfythe
amountofthejudgmentandcostsincludeinthewritofexecution.
Accordingtopetitioner,theusualprocedurealludedtobytheCourtof
Appeals refers to the procedure laid down in the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,whichwerenotineffect.HearguesthattheCourtofAppeals
erredinretroactivelyapplyingthesaidRulestoacasewhichoccurredin
1985.
Thecontentionisuntenable.Theusualprocedurementioneddidnot
necessarilymeanthatembodiedinthe1997Rules.Rather,itreferredto
theprocedurenormallyobservedintheserviceandenforcementofwrits
ofexecution,whichisconsistentwithbasicprinciplesoffairplay.Asthe
CourtofAppealscorrectlyobserved,theraisondetreforthedoctrineis
alltooplainforonetoseeanddiscern.Thedefendantinanejectmentcase
mustbeaccordedan
246
246
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Manuelvs.Escalante
opportunity to make adequate arrangements and find a place for the
transferofherpersonalbelongingsandotherpropertytoavoiddamageto
herproperties,andatthesametime,ascertainifthewritistimelyand
properlyissuedbythecourt.13
Inthecaseatbar,thewritofexecutionwasissuedbythetrialcourton
August30,1985.PetitionerservedthesameonrespondentsonSeptember
2,1985.Petitioner,therefore,hadthreedaysfromtheissuanceofthewrit
untilitsservicewithinwhichtogivenoticetorespondents.Therewasno
notice given. Respondents only learned of the issuance of the writ of
executionatthetimeitwasbeingenforcedbypetitioner.
Time and again, this Court has stressed the doctrine requiring that
notice be given to the defendant in ejectment cases. In Reformina v.
Adriano,14 wedeclaredthat,theimmediateenforcementofthewritof
ejectmentexecutioniscarriedoutbygivingthedefendantnoticeofsuch
writ, and making a demand that defendant comply therewithwithin a
reasonableperiod,normallyfromthree(3)tofive(5)days,anditisonly
aftersuchperiodthatthesheriffenforcesthewritbythebodilyremovalof
thedefendantandhisbelongings.15ThiswasreiteratedinCityofManila
v.CourtofAppeals,16towit:
TheCourtnoteswithdisapprovalthearbitrarymannerinwhichSheriffDominandor
CacpalandDeputySheriffReynaldoCorderoactedindeliveringpossessionofthe
leasedpremisestothepetitioner.Theevidenceshowsthattheyenforcedthewritof
executiononthesamedatetheyreceivedit,forciblytakingoutmovablesfromthe
saidpremises,includingchandeliers,furnitureandfurnishings,musicorgans,stereo
components,lightingfixturesandcomputers.Theyturnedoffthewater,cutoffthe
electricityanddisconnectedthetelephones.TheyalsounreasonablypreventedANC
membersfromenteringthepremisestogettheirpersonalbelongings.
_______________

13Rollo,p.21.

14189SCRA723[1990].

15Ibid.,at726.

16204SCRA362[1991].

247
VOL.387,AUGUST13,2002
247
Manuelvs.Escalante
CacpalandCorderoareherebysternlyreprimandedandwarnedthatarepetitionof
similar arbitrariness will be dealt with more severely. Their conduct was a clear
violationoftherequirementthat:
UndertheRulesofCourttheimmediateenforcementofawritofejectmentexecutionis
carriedoutbygivingthedefendantnoticeofsuchwrit,andmakingdemandthatdefendant
complytherewithwithinareasonableperiod,normallyfromthree(3)tofive(5)days,andit
isonlyaftersuchperiodthatthesheriffenforcesthewritbythebodilyremovalofthe
defendantandhispersonalbelongings.
Contrarytopetitionerscontention,theforegoingrulingsapplytothecase
atbar.Thetwocasesweredecidedundertheprovisionsofthe1964Rules
ofCourt,invokedbypetitioner.Asstated,thedoctrineisbasednotonany
specificrulebutontherudimentsofjusticeandfairplay.Itfrownsupon
arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise
legitimateact.Itisanamplificationoftheprovisionthat[e]veryperson
must,intheexerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties,act
withjustice,giveeveryonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith.17
 Anenttheappellatecourtsawardofdamages,wefindthatthesameis
reasonableandsupportedbytheevidenceonrecord.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is
DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No.
48659,whichreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.85
33241 and ordered petitioner Leody Manuel to pay respondent Daisy
Escalante the amounts of P20,000.00 by way of moral damages,
P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages and P5,000.00 by way of
attorneysfees,isAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug and AustriaMartinez, JJ.,
concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmedintoto.
_______________

17CivilCode,Article19.

248
248
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Manuelvs.Escalante
Note.Unless restrained by a court order to the contrary, sheriffs
shouldseetoitthattheexecutionofjudgmentsisnotundulydelayed.
(MarisgaMagbanuavs.VillarV.,305SCRA132[1999])
Inejectmentcases,evenifthequestionofownershipisraisedinthe
pleadings,thecourtmaypassuponsuchissuenutonlytodeterminethe
questionofpossessionespeciallyiftheformerisinseparablylinkedwith
thelater,butsuchdeterminationofownershipisnotclothedwithfinality,
andneitherwillitaffectownershipofthepropertynorconstituteabinding
and conclusive adjudication on the merits with respect to the issue of
ownership.(Pengsonvs.Ocampo,Jr.,360SCRA420[2001])
A judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not only upon the
defendantsinthesuitbutalsoagainstthosenotmadepartiesthereto,if
theyare:(a)trespassers,squattersoragentsofthedefendantfraudulently
occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guests or other
occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c)
transfereespendentelite;(d)sublessees;(e)colessees;or(f)membersof
thefamily,relativesandotherpriviesofthedefendant.(EquitablePCI
Bankvs.Ku,355SCRA309[2001])
Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provide an
expeditiousmeansofprotectingactualpossessionorrightofpossessionof
property.(Go,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,362SCRA755[2001])
o0o

249
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.