REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

6th JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 8
MIKAELLA E. REYES,
Petitioner,
-versus-

Criminal Case No. 10143-01

For: Qualified Theft

HON. ALFONSO QUIRINO,

Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
I.

PREFATORY STATEMENT.
1. This petition respectfully seeks the review by this Honorable Court of the
ORDER, dated xxx, issued by the Hon. Xxx, Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch xxx , of xxx City by way of Certiorari under Rule 65.
1.1.

A certified true copy of which is attached hereto as Annex A hereof,

with sub-markings.

2. The petitioner respectfully submits that the Public Respondent acted without or
in excess of her jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the questioned Order.
3. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law in seeking the reversal or nullification of the said Order except
this Rule 65 Petition.
4. This Petitioner submits that this Petition is meritorious, is not being prosecuted
manifestly for delay, and it raises substantial questions that require
consideration by this Honorable Court (Sec. 8, Rule 65).
II. ISSUE.
5. The sole issue in this Petition is:
WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS O JURISDICTION IN
ISSUING THE QUESTIONED ORDER, DATED February 19, 2016.
III.

DISCUSSION.
6. The herein Petitioner admits the general doctrine on appeals in Ejectment
Cases (i.e., general in the sense that they are subject to exceptions) is that,
under Rule 70, to perfect an appeal within the 15-day appeal period, three (3)
things must be complied with by the Appellant:
6.1.

Filing of the Notice of Appeal with the MeTC, with payment thereat of
the corresponding Appeal Fees;

6.2.

Supersedeas Bond equivalent to the value of the damages awarded

by the MeTC (actual damages, attorneys fees, and costs of suit); and

6.3.

Regular deposits with the Appellate Court (i.e., RTC) of the amounts
of the monthly rentals determined by the MeTC.

7. The herein Petitioner admits that she failed to comply with the above
requirements.
7.1.

The petitioner failed to post a supersedeas bond in the MeTC within

the 15-day appeal period.

7.2.

The Petitioner failed to make regular deposits of the monthly rentals

awarded.

8. Although it is ideal to post the Supersedeas Bond at the MeTC level within the
15-day appeal period, there are jurisprudence where the Supreme Court had,
in the past, allowed the delayed posting thereof at the RTC (appellate)-level.
8.1.

In the case of the Petitioner, considering her old age, sicknesses,

disabilities, financial straits, and economic sufferings, assisted by her
new Counsel, she filed with Branch 253 (appellate court) the
aforementioned urgent verified motion for reduction. (Annex E,
supra).

8.2.

The objective of her motion was precisely to comply with the

requirements of Supersedeas Bond and Regular Deposits of Monthly
Rentals of Rule 70, albeit on a reduced amount, subject to motion
hearings in and the merciful approval of Branch 253.

8.3.

The spirit was to invoke the sense of compassion justice of Branch xxx
to allow her to post a reduced Bond and Monthly Deposits.

8.4.

At the time of the filing by Petitioner of the said urgent verified motion
for reduction only one (1) month had lapsed from the end of the
15-day appeal period.

8.5.

The issue of complying with the requirement of making regular

deposits was minor and insignificant and not substantially harmful to
the Private Respondent as of that time.

9. The Public Respondent held, in her questioned Order, dated xxx, that she
could have positively considered the plight of the Petitioner had the latter filed
her motion for reduction of supersedeas bond much earlier without clearly
mentioning the proper time to do so.
9.1.

The Public Respondent considered against the Petitioner the fact that
the Petitioner had filed her motion for reduction of supersedeas bond
almost one (1) month (actually, 27 days, per the computation of
undersigned Counsel) from the end of the 15-day appeal period.

10. The Public Respondent gravely abused her discretion in ruling:

(a) That the motion for reduction of supersedeas bond should be filed within
the 15-day appeal period, or

(b) That the appellate court (RTC) had no power to exercise its sound
discretion to entertain and approve a belated motion for reduction of
supersedeas bond while the appeal is pending before it.
11. Nothing in Rule 70 supports the restrictive conclusions of Public Respondent.
11.1. On the contrary, Sec. 6, Rule 1, of the Rules of Court speak of
liberality (to read as compassionate justice) in court litigations. Thus:
SEC. 6. Construction.These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
12. RTC (APPELLATE COURT IN EJECTMENT APPEALS) MAY APPROVE
MOTIONS RELATED TO ALL ISSUES INVOLVING (A) THE MATTER OF
SUPERSEDEAS BOND AND (B) THE MATTER OF REGULAR MONTHLY
DEPOSITS.
In the case of Planas vs. Judge Ernesto A. Reyes, RTC Branch III, Pasay City,
A. M. RTJ-05-1905, February 23, 2005, the Supreme Court:
(1) allowed the appellate RTC Judge to exercise its sound judgment or
discretion in approving the supersedeas bond filed before it;
(2) affirmed the denial by the appellate RTC Judge of the immediate
execution of ejectment judgment for lack of compelling reasons, despite
posting of the required supersedeas bond with the appellate RTC.
12.1. The real issue in the said case was whether or not immediate execution
could be had after defendant-appellant has perfected its appeal but
failed to post a supersedeas bond before the trial court.
12.2. Sec. 19 of Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure speaks of
immediate execution in case of failure of defendant to perfect and
appeal within the mandatory appeal period.
12.3. In the said case, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff tarried and
did not immediately file a motion for execution below upon the rendition
and before defendant-appellant perfected its appeal. Rather the plaintiff
allowed the defendant to perfect its appeal leaving the trial court without
option but to elevate the case for review to the Regional Trial Court.
12.4. It was held that after the perfection of an appeal, the lower court can no
longer require the filing of a supersedeas bond and execution based
thereon is void. (citing Singson v. Babida, 79 SCRA 111).
12.5. With the approval by the appellate court (RTC), in the exercise of its
sound judgment or discretion of the supersedeas bond posted by the
defendant-appellant and it appearing that there was no compelling and
urgent reason to order immediate execution pending appeal, the
motion for immediate execution of the judgment of the MeTC should be
denied, the Supreme Court held.
12.6. The abovecited case supports the EXERCISE OF DISCRETION by the
RTC (appellate court in Ejectment Appeal) on:
(a) Approval of the supersedeas bond to stay execution; and

(b) Denial of execution pending appeal for lack of compelling reasons shown.
13. In the case of Tagulimot vs. Makalintal and Tanangunan, 85 Phil 40,
reiterated in Acibo vs. Hon. Higinio Macadaeg, et. al, G. R. No. L-19701,
June 30, 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC may allow the filing of
the supersedeas bond (which should have been filed in the MeTC) if the
judgment is not yet executed and, to this end, the RTC has the discretion to
allow a reasonable time within which the supersedeas bond may be filed.
The discretion is to allow or deny a supersedeas bond.
14. In the case of Quan vs. Sheriff of Manila, et. al., G. R. No. L-27160, May 30,
1974, the Supreme Court ruled while Section 8 of Rule 70 requires the filing
of a supersedeas bond with, and its approval by, the inferior court, it was
been held that the RTC, which has acquired jurisdiction over the case by the
perfection of the appeal , has the power to permit the appellant to post the
supersedeas bond which he had failed to submit to the inferior court.
15. In the case of Galan Realty Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Arranz, et. al, A. M. No. MTJ93-878, October 27, 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, in its
discretion and upon good cause shown, as the appellate court in Ejectment
Appeals, may allow the defendant to file the supersedeas bond in the said
court.
16. COMPASSIONATE JUSTICE.
The doctrine of social and compassionate justice is so well enshrined in our
Jurisprudence that it needs no voluminous citations.
16.1. Equity considerations provide an exception to technical and restrictive
interpretation of procedural rules. Equity is justice outside the law.
16.2. Equity is ethical rather than juridical.
16.3. It belongs to the sphere of morals than of law.
16.4. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction
of positive law.
16.5. Weighed in the scales of justice, conscience and reason tip in favor of
the herein Petitioner who is old, sickly, widow, jobless, poor, and
helpless.
16.6. Social and compassionate justice dictate that her case be considered
with mercy and compassion.
16.7. Indeed, equity should be accorded due weight because the
administration of justice is:
(a) not only secundum rationem (according to reason) but
(b) also secundum caritatem (according to charitable heart).
17. PENDENCY OF RELATED CIVIL CASE (Civil Case No. xxx-0091).
The herein Petitioner admits the doctrine that, as a general rule, the
pendency of an ordinary civil action involving ownership, quieting of title, and
similar issues will not suspend or enjoin the enforcement of a final and
executory Ejectment Decision. But admits of exceptions, in the interest of
justice.

18. In the first place, the MeTC Decision is not yet final and executory.
18.1. It is still under appeal in Branch xxx.
18.2. The parties in the Ejectment Appeal have yet to file their respective
Memoranda in Branch xxx.
19. EXCEPTION:
The case of MID PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON.RODRIGO B. LORENZO, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of RTC-Pasig City, Branch 266 and ROCKLAND
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., G.R. No. 153751, October 8, 2003, is
illuminating.
19.1. Litis Pendentia. - In order to sustain a dismissal of an action on the
ground of litis pendentia, the following requisites must concur:
(a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same
interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts, and
(c) identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that
may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
19.2. In the said case, the Supreme Court noted that a perusal of the complaint
for specific performance shows that its main purpose was to prevent
petitioner from ejecting respondent from the leased property.
19.2.1.
Although the complaint sought to compel petitioner to
execute a formal lease contract, its ultimate intent is to preclude
petitioner from filing a complaint for ejectment and for respondent
to maintain possession of the property, the Supreme Court
noted.
19.2.2.
The right to the execution of a formal agreement was hinged
upon the more fundamental issue of whether respondent has a
right to the possession of the property under the alleged implied
contract of lease, the Supreme Court stated.
19.2.3.
In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the central
issue to be resolved in the specific performance case
unmistakably boiled down to respondents right to continued
possession of the premises, which issue is essentially similar, if
not identical, to the one raised in the unlawful detainer case
before the MeTC.
19.3. Hence, the Supreme Court in the abovecited case held that the Court of
Appeals erred in finding that RTC Civil Case No. 68213 and MeTC Civil
Case No. 8788 have different causes of action.
19.3.1. The ultimate relief sought in the RTC was not really to
compel the defendant to formalize in a public instrument its
lease agreement with plaintiff but to enjoin petitioner from filing
the proper action for respondents ejectment so that it could

remain in possession of the property, the Supreme Court

stated.
19.3.2. This was evident in respondents prayer in the complaint for
specific performance, where it expressly sought for the
issuance of an order from the trial court prohibiting defendant
from instituting any action for the ejectment of plaintiff from the
leased premises, the Supreme Court noted.
19.4. Since the question of possession of the subject property is at the core of
the two actions, the Supreme Court stated that the parties in the said
case were actually litigating over the same subject matter, which is the
leased site, and on the same issue respondents right of possession by
virtue of the alleged contract.
Note: This is exactly the scenario in Civil Case No. xxx-0074 in relation to
Civil Case No. xxx-0091 referred to in the Statement of Facts in this
Petition.
19.5. In the aforecited case of MID PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, at the time of the filing of the RTC case, petitioner had
communicated to respondent that it had filed an ejectment against it for
violation of the original lease agreement.
19.5.1.
Thus, the RTC case, while purportedly one for specific
performance was in reality a preemptive maneuver intended to
block the complaint for ejectment, considering that it was brought
merely three days after respondent received the communication
from petitioner, according to the Supreme Court.
19.5.2.
The RTC case was instituted in anticipation of its
forthcoming move to eject respondent from the property, said
the Supreme Court.
Note:
Consider this ruling in relation to Civil Case No. xxx-0091 that was filed by
herein Petitioner against the Private Respondent in Branch xxx.
19.5.3.
It was filed to bind petitioners hands, so to speak, and to
lay the ground for dismissal of any subsequent action that the
latter may take pursuant to the notice of eviction, stated the
Supreme Court.
To repeat:
This was one of the main purposes for the commencement by
herein Petitioner of Civil Case No. xxx-0091 (annulment of
agreement to sell, etc.) against the Private Respondent involving
the same subject matter.
IV.

PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND WRIT OF

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (WPI).
20. The Petitioner respectfully seeks from this Honorable Court the issuance of
the following injunctive reliefs:
(a) An urgent ex parte TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)
immediately upon filing of this Petition, and

(b) A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (WPI) upon notice to and

upon filing of a Comment by the Private Respondent.
21. Sec. 7, Rule 65 grants to this Honorable Court the power to issue x x x a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending this proceeding.
22. The Petitioner admits that the filing of this petition shall not interrupt the
course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case (Id.).
22.1. Hence, she invokes the sense of compassionate justice of this
Honorable Court by issuing the urgent injunctive reliefs sought
hereinabove.
23. The miserable, pitiable, and unfortunate personal circumstances of the Petitioner are as
follows:
23.1. She is 79 years old now.
23.2. She has been a widow since 2001.
23.3. She is jobless.
23.4. Her old age and poor health prohibits her from engaging in gainful
work.
23.5. She relies on the financial support of her child, xxx (who has her own
family to support, too).
23.6. She is afflicted with various geriatric-related diseases considering her
old age, e.g. hypertension, diabetes, etc.
23.7. She has resided and continues to reside for almost 25 years now in
the property subject matter of the underlying (a) Civil Case No. xxx0071 (Ejectment Appeal) and (b) Civil Case No. xxx-0091 (annulment
of agreement to sell, etc.) since 1991 or thereabout.
23.8. She has no wealth of her own.
23.9. She owns no real property except for a small memorial lot gifted to
her by her children in the past.
23.10. To enforce the questioned Order, dated xxx would have the unjust
effect of ejecting her from the property subject matter of the
underlying Civil Case No. xxx-0074 in relation to Civil Case No. xxx0091 while the said two related cases are still pending before the
Trial Court a quo.
23.10.1. It will be unjust, cruel, inhuman, unkind, and
premature to allow such an unfair scenario (i.e., execution
pending appeal).
24. The Petitioner respectfully submits that she is entitled to the TRO and WPI
she seeks in this Petition against the questioned Order, dated xxx.
24.1. The enforcement pendente lite by the Respondents of the said Order
during the pendency of this Petition and during the pendency a quo

of the underlying Civil Case No. xxx-0074 in relation to the related

Civil Case No. xxx-0091 would surely work injustice to the Petitioner.
24.2. The enforcement pendente lite by the Respondents of the questioned
Order would violate the constitutional and human rights of the
Petitioner to compassionate justice, merciful due process of law, and
benevolent equal protection of the law with respect to this Petition
and in relation to the pending underlying Civil Case No. xxx-0074
(Ejectment Appeal) and the pending related Civil Case No. xxx-0091.
24.3. If the TRO and the WPI prayed for above are not issued y the
Honorable Court, whatever judgment this Honorable Court may
promulgate in this action would be rendered ineffectual. (Sec. 3, Rule
58).
25. The Petitioner is prepared to post a BOND at such amount and under such
terms and conditions as may be fixed by this Honorable Court.
25.1. The Bond would adequately protect the rights and interests of the
Private Respondent in this action in relation to the underlying Civil
Case No. xxx-0074 (Ejectment Appeal) vis--vis the related Civil
Case No. xxx-0091.
26. This Petition is duly verified to serve as the AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT of the
Petitioner at the same time, pursuant to Rule 58.
V.

RELIEF.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. Upon filing of this Petition with this Honorable Court, an urgent ex parte
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued enjoining the Public
Respondent to suspend further proceedings in the underlying Civil Case No.
xxx-0074;
2. Upon notice to and filing of a Comment by Private Respondent, a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction (WPI) be issued by this Honorable Court enjoining the
Public Respondent from implementing its Order, dated xxx, in the matter of
the execution pending appeal of the Judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court
vis--vis Civil Case No. xxx-0074 until this Honorable Court shall have
resolved this Petition with finality;
3. This Petition be given DUE COURSE;
4. The questioned ORDER, dated xxx (Annex A, supra) of the Public
Respondent be SET ASIDE, REVERSED AND NULLIFIED without prejudice
to the continuation of the proceedings on the merits in Civil Case No. xxx0074 (Ejectment Appeal), in relation to Civil Case No. xxx-0091, before the
Public Respondent for final adjudication.
5. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the questioned Order, dated
xxx, AND AGAINST THE Public Respondent be declared PERMANENT
insofar as the matter of execution pending appeal by Public Respondent is
concerned.

FURTHER, the Petitioner respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 2016 at Iloilo City, Philippines.

ATTY. MARIANNE P. JUNCO

Counsel for the Petitioner
IBP No. 836245/ 01-14-15 - Guimaras
PTR No. 1315812/ 01-05-15- Guimaras
Roll of Attorneys No. 33450
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004385 - 10/23/14

EXPLANATION
( Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rule of the Civil Procedure)
The foregoing pleading is being served through registered mail except for the
filing of the petition because personal delivery is impractical due to distance.

Copy furnished:
ELIZABETH O. LUCIO
Clerk of Court
6th Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 7, Iloilo City

ATTY. PAUL ELY T. RIVERA

Rivera Law Office
Door 3, 3rd floor, Rivera Bldg.,
Jaro, Iloilo City

ATTY. MARIANNE P. JUNCO

Counsel for the Petitioner
IBP No. 836245/ 01-14-15 - Guimaras
PTR No. 1315812/ 01-05-15- Guimaras
Roll of Attorneys No. 33450
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004385 - 10/23/14

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, MIKAELLA E. REYES, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I am a petitioner in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my
personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my
possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.

MIKAELLA E. REYES
Affiant
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 24th day of February 2016
in Iloilo City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her Philippine Passport No. 123411
issued in Iloilo City on January 12, 2015 and valid until January 12, 2020.

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2015

ATTY. JAGE JOSEPH M. SUROPIA

NOTARY PUBLIC
UNTIL: DECEMBER 31, 2019
PTR NO. 9876543, JULY 27, 2017-ILOILO CITY
IBP NO. 33433, APRIL 20, 2017- ILOILO CITY
ROLL NO: 54327 TIN:965-456-976
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO: J-8874343 6/13/17
VALID FROM: 7/23/17-7/22/19