Written
by Benjamin B. Pulta [ tribune.ne.ph ]
Tuesday, 16 April 2013 00:00
Tuesday, 16 April 2013 00:00
The
Court of Appeals (CA) has turned down a petition filed by the Philippine
Village Hotel Inc. (PVHI) which is challenging the eviction order issued
against them by the Nayong Pilipino Foundation Inc. (NPFI) for unpaid
rentals.
In a
five-page decision by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, the CA’s Fifth
Division denied the petition filed by PVHI seeking to nullify and set aside May
10, 2012 order of Judge Wilhelmina Jorge-Wagan of Pasay City Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Branch 111 denying its application for issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO).
Concurring
with the decision were Associate Justices Ricardo Rosario and Leoncia Dimagiba.
In 1997, PVHI signed with the former NPF administration of a lease contract for another 25 years for its hotel which was built on Nayong Pilipino premises in the mid-70s, but was closed in May 2001.
In 1997, PVHI signed with the former NPF administration of a lease contract for another 25 years for its hotel which was built on Nayong Pilipino premises in the mid-70s, but was closed in May 2001.
PVHI
defaulted in the payment of rental starting January 2001 which prompted NPF to
file an unlawful detainer or eviction case against PVHI and eventually won its
legal battle.
PVHI was ordered to pay arrearages amounting to more than P26 million. The hotel management was also ordered to vacate the Nayong Pilipino premises and pay updated back rentals.Both the CA and the Supreme Court ordered the eviction of PVHI and opined that an execution of judgment should be made.
PVHI was ordered to pay arrearages amounting to more than P26 million. The hotel management was also ordered to vacate the Nayong Pilipino premises and pay updated back rentals.Both the CA and the Supreme Court ordered the eviction of PVHI and opined that an execution of judgment should be made.
In denying
PVHI’s petition, the CA stated that “there is no supervening event to justify a
stay of execution.”
“Even with
the passage of (an executive order), petitioner’s situation as lessee has not
been transformed to another juridical relation,” the CA ruling pointed out.
“The rule is,
once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the
court to order its execution. There being no justifiable reason to stay the
execution, the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioner’s application for issuance of injunctive relief.”
______________________________________________________________
