Orosco v. Mengote
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 230988, entitled "Aida Orosco, et al. vs. Norma M. Mengote, et al.", decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court on August 2, 2017. The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari of the petitioners and affirmed the April 19, 2016 Decision and March 17, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06506. The legal issue in this case is whether the issuance of the writs of execution and demolition is proper despite the pendency of the petition for prohibition. The Supreme Court held that it is, as the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's Decision had already attained finality, and the sheriff is mandated to implement the said writs to enforce the judgment.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230988. August 2, 2017.]
AIDA OROSCO, BERLINDA MONTANCES, ADELINA RODELES, SEGUNDINA GESUYOT, LIZA MOSLARES, JESUSA MOSLARES, GRACE VALDERAMA, BONIFACIO LIBANAN, NIDA LIBANAN, SEGUNDO MOSLARES, RAMON PAJAROJA, NILO ACULANA, PAZ ACULANA, KETOT LUTCHING, AND PERPETUA LUTCHING, *petitioners,vs. NORMA M. MENGOTE, ROMEO G. MENGOTE, JR., VALERIE MENGOTE, JEAN M. OMANGAYON, CRISTINE MENGOTE, JENEVIEVE MENGOTE, AND ERLITO C. VILLALON, SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR, BRANCH 3, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 2, 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 230988 (Aida Orosco, Berlinda Montances, Adelina Rodeles, Segundina Gesuyot, Liza Moslares, Jesusa Moslares, Grace Valderama, Bonifacio Libanan, Nida Libanan, Segundo Moslares, Ramon Pajaroja, Nilo Aculana, Paz Aculana, Ketot Lutching, and Perpetua Lutching*v. Norma M. Mengote, Romeo G. Mengote, Jr., Valerie Mengote, Jean M. Omangayon, Cristine Mengote, Jenevieve Mengote, and Erlito C. Villalon, Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Oras, Eastern Samar, Branch 3). — The petitioners' motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and the entry of appearance of Atty. Cenesio C. Gavan with address at Brgy. Campesao, Borongan City, Eastern Samar, as counsel for petitioners is NOTED.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 19, 2016 Decision 1 and March 17, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06506 for failure of petitioners Aida Orosco, Berlinda Montances, Adelina Rodeles, Segundina Gesuyot, Liza Moslares, Jesusa Moslares, Grace Valderama, Bonifacio Libanan, Nida Libanan, Segundo Moslares, Ramon Pajaroja, Nilo Aculana, Paz Aculana, Ketot Lutching, and Perpetua Lutching (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA erred in upholding the denial of their petition for prohibition.
As correctly held by the CA, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's April 26, 2010 Decision 3 had already attained finality, thus, the issuance of the writs of execution and demolition was made as a matter of course. Consequently, the sheriff is mandated to implement the said writs and prohibition does not lie to prevent their enforcement, absent justifiable grounds, which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Lunching" in some parts of the records.
1.Rollo, pp. 41-47. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2.Id. at 48-49.
3.Id. at 19-25. Penned by Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Jimmy A. Umil, Sr.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU