De Leon v PEA, GR No.

181970, August 3, 2010

The Supreme Court declared that Lot 5155, occupied by De Leon, was a public
land so that occupation thereof, no matter how long ago, could not confer ownership or
possessory rights.

The aforesaid Decision became final and executory as no motion for

reconsideration was filed. In due course, PEA moved for the issuance of a writ of
execution before the RTC praying that De Leon and persons claiming rights under him
be ordered to vacate and peaceably surrender possession of Lot 5155.

PEA then filed a Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Demolition. The RTC
held abeyance the resolution of the motion due to the petitions for certiorari with
application of TRO and Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding in
abeyance the resolution of PEAs Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition. Yes.

Held:

Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides the general rule that the mere
pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending
before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence
of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

It is true that there are instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper
for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial
courtesy. The principle of judicial courtesy, however, remains to be the exception rather
than the rule.

In this case, the general rule applies.

The urgency of proceeding with the principal case is present in this case.
considering that this Courts judgment in PEA v. CA, finding that De Leon does not own
the subject property and is not entitled to its possession, had long become final and
executory.

- As a consequence, the writ of execution, as well as the writ of demolition,

should be issued as a matter of course, in the absence of any order restraining
their issuance.
 - In fact, the writ of demolition is merely an ancillary process to carry out the
Order previously made by the RTC for the execution of this Courts decision
in PEA v. CA. It is a logical consequence of the writ of execution earlier issued.

Neither can De Leon argue that he stands to sustain irreparable damage.

- The Court had already determined with finality that he is not the owner of the
disputed property and that he has no right to possess the same independent of
his claim of ownership.

Eternal Gardens vs. CA, G.R. No. L-50054 August 17, 1988

Petitioner Eternal Gardens filed for clearance from the National ontrol
Commission (NPCC), to operate a memorial park at the former site of the Philippine
Union College in Baesa, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. Respondents residents of Baesa
opposed the application on the ground that the project would cause water pollution.

NPCC granted the certificate of clearance. Respondents appealed to Intermediate

Appellate Court (IAC.)

NPCC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on ground that it was filed out of time.
Respondents moved to expunge the motion saying it violated rules in filing motions.

IAC granted respondents motion. MR denied so NPCC filed petition for certiorari
with Preliminary Injunction.

Pending the petition for certiorari with the SC, the IAC recalled its order granting
respondents’ motion to expunge. It then issued another resolution granting NPCC’s
motion to dismiss on the ground that it was filed out of time.

Issue: W/N IAC committed GAD issuing the resolutions. Yes.

Respondents maintain that while under the Rules of Court, courts may amend, modify
or revoke any decision or order promulgated by them, such power of authority is not
absolute.

- They state that among the limitations thereof are when a judgment has become
final and when an appeal has been interposed on time.
 - Accordingly, while it is true that what is pending in the present case is neither
a final judgment nor an appeal by certiorari, the effect thereof would be the
same.
- Therefore, out of respect and courtesy for the higher court, the lower court
should have suspended all pending proceedings in the elevated case as even
without any restraining order, the lower court had lost jurisdiction to further
act on the case.

Court agrees with the respondents.

- Although the SC did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate
Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its
resolutions respectively granting respondents' motion to expunge from the
records the petitioner's motion to discuss and denying the latter's motion to
reconsider such, order, upon learning of the petition, the appellate court should
have refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily
limited upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questioning
the propriety of the issuance of the above-mentioned resolutions.
- Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations
should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination
of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot
exactly what was before this court.