View full case

ANDRES DY v. CA

FACTS:

On July 21, 1982, the private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment against the petitioners in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. Summons was issued to the petitioners, who filed their answer to the complaint. After the preliminary conference, the parties were required to submit their affidavits, evidence, and position papers. Eventually, the trial court rendered a decision on November 9, 1989, in favor of the private respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay monthly rentals. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which affirmed the decision and declared it immediately executory. The records of the case were remanded to the lower court, and the private respondent filed a motion for immediate execution of judgment, which was granted. Consequently, on February 24, 1990, the respondent sheriff, aided by authorities and other individuals, forcibly evicted the petitioners from the premises. On February 26, 1990, the petitioners, through their counsel, filed a motion to quash and nullify the execution, as they had not been served a copy of the trial court's decision. The motion was denied on the same day. The petitioners received a copy of the decision on March 6, 1990, and on the next day, they filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the execution due to the lack of notice. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioners to file this petition with the Supreme Court. The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was a denial of due process in the execution of the judgment before a copy of said judgment was served on the petitioners.

  2. Whether or not the immediate execution of the judgment is valid under the Rules on Summary Procedure.

RULING:

  1. Yes, there was a denial of due process in the execution of the judgment before a copy of said judgment was served on the petitioners. Under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution shall only issue upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action or proceeding, and a copy of such final order or judgment shall be served personally or by registered mail on the parties. In this case, the petitioners were not served a copy of the decision of the trial court before its immediate execution was effected.

  2. No, the immediate execution of the judgment is not valid under the Rules on Summary Procedure. While Section 18 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that the decision of the regional trial court in civil cases under summary procedure shall be immediately executory, Section 12 of the same rules requires that a copy of the final judgment or order be personally served or served by registered mail on the parties. An immediate execution without the proper service of the judgment violates due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Parties are entitled to due process in every litigation, including cases under summary procedure.

  • Execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action or proceeding, and a copy of such final order or judgment shall be served personally or by registered mail on the parties.

  • Immediate execution of a judgment under summary procedure is not valid without proper service of the judgment on the parties.