G.R. No. 91406 - JULY 1990 - PHILIPPINES JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 91406July 31, 1990Heirs of Julio Rosas vs. Oscar R. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. 88697July 31, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Mario Barredo Valeriano G.R. No. 85691July 31, 1990Bachelor Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 84835July 31, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Tumalad G.R. No. 82573July 31, 1990Felicidad A. Vda. De Lagman vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82178July 31, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Romeo M. Saludar G.R. No. 79966July 31, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Bocatcat, Sr. G.R. No. 74125July 31, 1990Universal Shipping Lines vs. Intermediate Appelate Court G.R. No. 92490July 30, 1990Melanio N. Esquig vs. Civil Service Com. G.R. No. 92016July 30, 1990Joel Allian vs. Chairman & Commissioners G.R. No. 92008July 30, 1990Ramon P. Binamira vs. Peter D. Garrucho, Jr. G.R. Nos. 91223-26July 30, 1990Manila Port Services, Inc. vs. Arthur G. Amansec G.R. Nos. 90306-07July 30, 1990K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88011July 30, 1990Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 87266-69July 30, 1990Associated Workers Union-Ptgwo vs. National Labor Relations Commision G.R. No. 84729July 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Albarillo G.R. No. 84046July 30, 1990Gaudencio Ordoñez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80533July 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Agayas T. Vocente G.R. No. 76547July 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Albert A. Olaes G.R. Nos. 67803-04July 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Madali G.R. No. 47884July 30, 1990Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. 37451July 30, 1990Benjamin L. Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Wilfredo Arsenal G.R. Nos. 84154-55July 28, 1990Felix Lim, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 87216July 28, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Domingo P. De Mesa G.R. No. 86360July 28, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Floro Del Pilar G.R. No. 82590July 26, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Estanislao T. Yutuc G.R. No. 92013July 25, 1990Salvador H. Laurel vs. Ramon Garcia G.R. No. 88919July 25, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Enrique B. Inting G.R. No. 85866July 24, 1990Asian Const. and Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 85416July 24, 1990Francisco V. Del Rosario vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 83319July 24, 1990Edwina Lema Beech vs. Jose C. De Guzman G.R. No. 77011July 24, 1990Alitalia Airways vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 70140July 24, 1990Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 45302July 24, 1990Latchme Motoomull vs. Joffre Dela Paz G.R. No. 43972July 24, 1990Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 35830July 24, 1990Fortunata Mercado vs. Alberto Q. Ubay G.R. No. 90261July 23, 1990Ben A. Santander vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 85295July 23, 1990Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80750-51July 23, 1990Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 73403July 23, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo C. Rabang G.R. No. 57343July 23, 1990Luisa Echaus vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 45262July 23, 1990Ruperto Reyes vs. Lorenzo R. Mosqueda A.M. No. MTJ-89-269July 23, 1990Lourdes McCormack vs. Jose G. Montemayor G.R. No. 91666July 20, 1990Western Guaranty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89747July 20, 1990Maersk-Tabacalera Shipping Agency (Filipinas) vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 88281July 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rolando G. Dayot G.R. No. 87017July 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Baring G.R. No. 79009July 20, 1990Arcadia Vistal vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. 65584July 20, 1990Leonardo Montinola vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 65045July 20, 1990Artex Development Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 90827July 19, 1990Puma Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler, K.G. vs. Job B. Madayag G.R. No. 87223July 19, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Danilo C. Guevarra G.R. No. 78859July 19, 1990Fortunata vda. de Hornido vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. 78268July 19, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Donato Alvero G.R. No. 77284July 19, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Balansi G.R. No. 76529July 19, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Laureano Bicog G.R. No. 70876July 19, 1990Ma. Luisa Benedicto vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. Nos. 44501-05July 19, 1990John L. Garrison vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 69894July 19, 1990Apolinar Dongco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 64374July 19, 1990Victor A. Custodio vs. Minister, Ministry of Labor and Employment A.M. No. RTJ-88-246July 19, 1990Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia A.C. No. 2200July 19, 1990Basilio C. Gutierrez vs. Leonardo N. Zulueta G.R. No. 80993July 17, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rolando N. Garcia G.R. No. 77671July 17, 1990German Management & Services vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 89043-65July 16, 1990Jose R. Veloso vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 87210July 16, 1990Filomena Barcenas vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 44344July 16, 1990Felipa Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 41061July 16, 1990William Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. P-87-104July 16, 1990Office of the Court Administrator vs. Pablo R. Racadag A.M. No. 2076-RETJuly 13, 1990In Re: Gregorio G. Pineda A.M. No. 747-RETJuly 13, 1990In Re: Ruperto G. Martin G.R. No. 91718July 13, 1990Gil C. Gallardo vs. Franco F. Rimando G.R. No. 91548July 13, 1990Tomas N. Joson III. vs. Narciso S. Nario G.R. No. 91429July 13, 1990Salvador M. Mison vs. Commission on Audit, et al. G.R. No. 91023July 13, 1990Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic Dist. vs. Arsenio M. Gonong G.R. No. 89620July 13, 1990Prudencio S. Penticostes, Sr. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 82513July 13, 1990Adrian S. De La Paz vs. Director of Patents G.R. No. 81946July 13, 1990Benecio D. Gubac vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 76518July 13, 1990Irene P. Relucio vs. Zeida B. Brillante-Garfin G.R. No. 68747July 13, 1990Vicente Rañeses vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 89316July 12, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Nestor J. Tan G.R. No. 86649July 12, 1990Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng vs. Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. G.R. No. 85137July 12, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Michael Charles B. Herrick G.R. No. 82607July 12, 1990Star Security and Detective Investigation Agency vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. 77638July 12, 1990Maritime Agencies & Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 84581-82July 9, 1990Amelia Roque vs. Gen. Renato De Villa G.R. No. 81567July 9, 1990Habeas Corpus of Roberto Umil vs. Fidel V. Ramos G.R. No. 79731July 9, 1990Reynaldo Lausa vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 72976July 9, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Eduarte G.R. No. 94176July 6, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Gervacio Esparcia G.R. No. 90926July 6, 1990Alex G. Lee vs. J. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. G.R. No. 88324July 6, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Angelo M. Arceo G.R. No. 66510July 6, 1990Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 66324July 6, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Cempron G.R. No. 58174July 6, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo E. De Dios G.R. No. 48580July 6, 1990Apolinario Kirit, Sr. vs. Government Service Insurance System, (Dec) G.R. Nos. 66075-76July 5, 1990Eulogio Agustin vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 65005July 5, 1990Quality Tobacco Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 88396July 4, 1990Manila Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 85328July 4, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Leoparte G.R. No. 75366July 4, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Ampo-An G.R. No. 85450July 3, 1990Querico Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76366July 3, 1990Spouses Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 47131July 3, 1990People of the Philippines vs. J. Mariano Castañeda G.R. No. 45961July 3, 1990Manila Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 43527July 3, 1990Eliseo Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 87974July 2, 1990Bristol Laboratories Employees Asso. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 86693July 2, 1990Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc vs. Noli Maalat G.R. No. 86044July 2, 1990Victorino Torres vs. Leon Ventura G.R. No. 84308July 2, 1990Heirs of Juan Dacasin vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82216July 2, 1990Dolores De Mesa Abad vs. Corona Ibay Somera G.R. No. 81761July 2, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio B. Payumo G.R. No. 79138July 2, 1990People of the Philippines vs. David S. Loveria G.R. No. 70133July 2, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Acosta G.R. No. 66344July 2, 1990Miguel Lanzona vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 57665July 2, 1990Aleja Sibayan Vda. De Pineda vs. Teodoro Peña G.R. No. 56694July 2, 1990Heirs of the Late Pedro Pinote vs. Ceferino E. Dulay G.R. No. 48700July 2, 1990Co Kiat vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 43664July 2, 1990Melitona Gersalino vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Heirs of Julio Rosas vs. Oscar R. Reyes, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Mario Barredo ValerianoBachelor Express, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Francisco TumaladFelicidad A. Vda. De Lagman vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo M. SaludarPeople of the Philippines vs. Tomas Bocatcat, Sr.Universal Shipping Lines vs. Intermediate Appelate CourtMelanio N. Esquig vs. Civil Service Com.Joel Allian vs. Chairman & CommissionersRamon P. Binamira vs. Peter D. Garrucho, Jr.Manila Port Services, Inc. vs. Arthur G. AmansecK.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionAssociated Workers Union-Ptgwo vs. National Labor Relations CommisionPeople of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo AlbarilloGaudencio Ordoñez vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Agayas T. VocentePeople of the Philippines vs. Albert A. OlaesPeople of the Philippines vs. Ricarte MadaliCommissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax AppealsBenjamin L. Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Wilfredo ArsenalFelix Lim, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Domingo P. De MesaPeople of the Philippines vs. Floro Del PilarPeople of the Philippines vs. Estanislao T. YutucSalvador H. Laurel vs. Ramon GarciaPeople of the Philippines vs. Enrique B. IntingAsian Const. and Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionFrancisco V. Del Rosario vs. National Labor Relations CommissionEdwina Lema Beech vs. Jose C. De GuzmanAlitalia Airways vs. Court of AppealsPhilippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtLatchme Motoomull vs. Joffre Dela PazPhilippine National Bank vs. Court of AppealsFortunata Mercado vs. Alberto Q. UbayBen A. Santander vs. Court of AppealsLincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionGreat Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo C. RabangLuisa Echaus vs. Court of AppealsRuperto Reyes vs. Lorenzo R. MosquedaLourdes McCormack vs. Jose G. MontemayorWestern Guaranty Corporation vs. Court of AppealsMaersk-Tabacalera Shipping Agency (Filipinas) vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando G. DayotPeople of the Philippines vs. Pedro BaringArcadia Vistal vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionLeonardo Montinola vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtArtex Development Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPuma Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler, K.G. vs. Job B. MadayagPeople of the Philippines vs. Danilo C. GuevarraFortunata vda. de Hornido vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Donato AlveroPeople of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio BalansiPeople of the Philippines vs. Laureano BicogMa. Luisa Benedicto vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJohn L. Garrison vs. Court of AppealsApolinar Dongco vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtVictor A. Custodio vs. Minister, Ministry of Labor and EmploymentVicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. GarciaBasilio C. Gutierrez vs. Leonardo N. ZuluetaPeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando N. GarciaGerman Management & Services vs. Court of AppealsJose R. Veloso vs. SandiganbayanFilomena Barcenas vs. National Labor Relations CommissionFelipa Gregorio vs. Court of AppealsWilliam Guevarra vs. Court of AppealsOffice of the Court Administrator vs. Pablo R. RacadagIn Re: Gregorio G. PinedaIn Re: Ruperto G. MartinGil C. Gallardo vs. Franco F. RimandoTomas N. Joson III. vs. Narciso S. NarioSalvador M. Mison vs. Commission on Audit, et al.Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic Dist. vs. Arsenio M. GonongPrudencio S. Penticostes, Sr. vs. Development Bank of the PhilippinesAdrian S. De La Paz vs. Director of PatentsBenecio D. Gubac vs. National Labor Relations CommissionIrene P. Relucio vs. Zeida B. Brillante-GarfinVicente Rañeses vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Nestor J. TanAnna Dominique M.L. Coseteng vs. Ramon V. Mitra, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Michael Charles B. HerrickStar Security and Detective Investigation Agency vs. Secretary of LaborMaritime Agencies & Services, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsAmelia Roque vs. Gen. Renato De VillaHabeas Corpus of Roberto Umil vs. Fidel V. RamosReynaldo Lausa vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Florentino EduartePeople of the Philippines vs. Gervacio EsparciaAlex G. Lee vs. J. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Angelo M. ArceoPhilippine Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Alfredo CempronPeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo E. De DiosApolinario Kirit, Sr. vs. Government Service Insurance System, (Dec)Eulogio Agustin vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtQuality Tobacco Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtManila Electric Company vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido LeopartePeople of the Philippines vs. Carlos Ampo-AnQuerico Dela Cruz vs. Court of AppealsSpouses Ramirez vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. J. Mariano CastañedaManila Banking Corporation vs. Court of AppealsEliseo Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsBristol Laboratories Employees Asso. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionCosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc vs. Noli MaalatVictorino Torres vs. Leon VenturaHeirs of Juan Dacasin vs. Court of AppealsDolores De Mesa Abad vs. Corona Ibay SomeraPeople of the Philippines vs. Virgilio B. PayumoPeople of the Philippines vs. David S. LoveriaPeople of the Philippines vs. Jesus AcostaMiguel Lanzona vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAleja Sibayan Vda. De Pineda vs. Teodoro PeñaHeirs of the Late Pedro Pinote vs. Ceferino E. DulayCo Kiat vs. Court of AppealsMelitona Gersalino vs. Workmen's Compensation Com.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 91406 July 31, 1990
HEIRS OF JULIO ROSAS HEREIN REPRESENTED IN THIS SUIT BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MERCEDES ROSAS,petitioners
vs.
HON. OSCAR R. REYES, Presiding Judge of Pasay City Branch 47, Metropolitan Trial Court, CHARRY CARANAY and SANTIAGO I. BARCENAS,respondents.
Roman C. Cabading for petitioners.
GUTIERREZ, JR.,J.:
The issue before this Court in this civil action for certiorari is whether or not after an implied new lease is created and the court has fixed a definite period for the new lease, the lessor may eject the lessee upon expiration of said period by a mere motion for execution without instituting anew another action for ejectment,
The petitioners are owners of a residential apartment in Pasay City, a unit of which is being leased by the private respondents. The latter had been renting the premises as early as February 1984 and their occupancy was renewed on January 15, 1986 as evidenced by a lease contract which was to expire six months thereafter, or in June 1986. On February 21, 1987, the petitioners, through counsel, wrote a letter to the private respondents demanding a higher rental from P1,000.00 to P1,500.00 and that they vacate the premises in the event that they do not agree to the higher rental. On March 3, 1987, the private respondents replied that they do not agree to the petitioners' demand for higher rental and alleged that there was an implied renewal of the lease contract. They paid their rentals which were accepted by the petitioners but upon tender of the rental for May 1987, the latter refused to accept the same. This prompted the private respondents to deposit with a bank the rentals for May 1987 and the succeeding months.
In May 1987, the petitioners filed an unlawful detainer suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47 at Pasay City. After submission of the evidence based on the rules on summary procedure, the respondent judge rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners. The private respondents were ordered to vacate the premises.
On appeal by the private respondents, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the complaint on the ground that a demand to vacate was not timely made before the expiration of the old lease contract pursuant to Article 1670 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the RTC judge applied Article 1687 and fixed a new lease period of six months ending on April 30, 1988. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby reversed. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, this Court has to fix the period in accordance with Article 1687 of the Civil Code and the defendant shall remain in the premises for another six months beginning from receipt of this order with the same amount of monthly rental as stipulated in the contract of lease. (Annex C complainant). In short, not later than April 30, 1988. (Rollo, p. 20)
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision on April 27, 1989 affirming the RTC's decision.
On August 9, 1989, the petitioners filed a motion for execution before the respondent Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) judge alleging that the private respondents have not yet vacated the leased premises despite the lapse of the period given them by the court.ℒαwρhi৷Pursuant thereto, the respondent judge issued an order denying the motion for execution, declaring that since the RTC judgment stating that defendants may stay for a period of six months from receipt of the decision embodies a mere directive, there is in effect no judgment to be executed. In his order, the respondent judge likewise reminded the petitioners to institute anew an ejectment case predicated on valid grounds for ejectment.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration of said order but the respondent judge denied their motion. Hence, this appeal bycertiorari.
The petitioners seek a review of the orders of the respondent judge denying their Motion for Execution and Motion for Reconsideration and to compel and command the respondent judge to issue a writ of execution to enforce the aforementioned dispositive portion of the RTC's decision. The petitioners likewise seek administrative sanctions against the respondent judge.
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's decision may be segmented into two parts. In the first part, the complaint for ejectment was dismissed. In the second part, the lower court fixed the period of lease for another six months from receipt of the court's order, not later than April 30, 1988.
The petitioners aver that while the first part is apparently contradictory to the second part, it is no justification for the respondent MTC judge to disregard the second portion and to require the filing of a new complaint to enforce the latter. According to the petitioners, the dispositive portion is the decision to be executed and this can be enforced by mere motion. They argue that the dispositive portion should have been construed and harmonized as a whole in order to give meaning to the judgment.
The petition is impressed with merit.
The respondent judge erred in concluding that the part of the dispositive portion which states that:
... defendant shall remain in the premises for another six months beginning from receipt of this order ... In short, not later than April 30, 1988.
is a mere directive and in effect there is no judgment to be executed. On the contrary, the above-quoted dispositive portion is part and parcel of an executory judgment which can be enforced by mere motion.
Article 1670 of the Civil Code provides:
If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.
In the present case, the RTC judge dismissed the ejectment suit because there was no express notice to vacate within the statutory 15-day period and an implied new lease was created. Accordingly, the judge proceeded to apply Article 1687 which refers to the lease of urban lands. The pertinent portion of said article states:
If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual, from month to month, if it is monthly, from week to week, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. ...
Since the private respondents have been occupying the leased premises for more than one year, the RTC judge acted within legal bounds in extending the lease for another six months. The logical consequence of the foregoing lease extension is that at after the lapse of six months, the private respondent must relinquish possession of the leased apartment.
The dismissal of the ejectment suit is not with the fixing of the term of the new lease. Both are equally enforce able by mere motion. Upon expiration of the six-month period, the private respondents have to vacate the premises and if they do not, a motion for execution of judgment, and not a new ejectment suit, will suffice to oust them from the leased area. The motion arises from a court decision and any plausible intervening defenses such as purchase of the premises by the lessee can be raised when the motion is heard. This Court deplores advice to needlessly file suits which unnecessarily clog judicial dockets and frustrate the speedy disposition of cases. The respondent's comment and memorandum shows that her case is purely dilatory relying as it does solely on technicality.
While we hold that the public respondent erred in denying the petitioners' motion for execution, this Court finds that his disposition of the motion is a mere error of judgment which does not warrant administrative sanctions against him. There is no showing of bias or other improper motive in the questioned order.
Parenthetically, the petitioners also claim that the private respondents have not been paying the rentals due from the time the petitioners filed their appeal with the Court of Appeals. In this connection, the private respondents, through respondent Charry Caranay, answered in their memorandum that they have already vacated the premises by virtue of an agreement with Editha Rosas, wife of petitioner Eduardo Rosas, and that Editha Rosas likewise agreed to condone their rental arrearages.
The petitioners, however, manifested that they did not give Editha Rosas authority to act in their behalf as evidenced by a special power of attorney wherein they appointed Mercedes Rosas, not Editha Rosas, as their attorney-in-fact.
This Court finds that the agreement to condone the unpaid rental is unenforceable inasmuch as it was entered into by Editha Rosas without authority of the petitioners. Besides, it would be unfair to exonerate the private respondents from the payment of rentals. The RTC judge stated in the dipositive portion of his decision that "the defendant shall remain in the premises for another six months beginning from the receipt of this orderwith the same amount of monthly rental as stipulated in the contract of lease... ." Even if said judgment did not immediately become executory due to the petitioners' appeal to the appellate court, the private respondents were legally and morally obligated to pay rentals because they enjoyed and made use of the leased premises. Their failure to pay plainly constitutes unjust enrichment on their part.
WHEREFORE,except for the imposition of administrative sanctions against the public respondent, the petition isGRANTED.The orders of the respondent judge dated October 30, 1989 and December 15, 1989 in Civil Case No. 259-87 areSET ASIDE.The respondent judge is hereby ordered to issue a writ of execution to enforce the second part of the dispositive portion of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 5167 ordering the private respondents and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate Apartment G, 2345 Cinco De Junio St., Pasay City, if they have not yet vacated the premises. The private respondents are ordered to pay the unpaid lease rentals due to the petitioners until the time they vacate, or vacated, the leased premises.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.