G.R. No. 203492 - PABLO AND PABLINA MARCELO-MENDOZA, VS. PEROXIDE PHILS., INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ROBERT R. NAVERA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, upon motion, the MeTC issued an Order dated June 2, 1995 granting the issuance of a writ of execution. [8] On June 16, 1995, Affidavits of Third-Party Claims of United Energy Corporation and Springfield International, Inc. (third-party claimants) were filed with the sheriff. [9] Ultimately, on August 3, 1995, the sheriff conducted a public auction and sold for P2 Million to Pablo, as the highest bidder, the levied properties of PPI that were found inside the subject property. [10] Aggrieved, the third-party claimants filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-24760, to declare void the sheriff's sale and Certificate of Sale with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI). [11] In an Amended Complaint [12] dated October 15, 2001, the third-party claimants added PPI as a party-plaintiff and prayed further for the declaration of PPI's ownership over the improvements erected and/or introduced on the subject property. On September 8, 1995, a WPI was issued by then Presiding Judge Pedro T. Santiago (Presiding Judge Santiago). [13] Pablo then challenged the issuance of the WPI by petition for certiorari before the CA and later before this Court in G.R. No. 127271, where the Court upheld the validity of the WPI. [14] Meanwhile, the deputy sheriff of the RTC of Quezon City padlocked the gate of the subject property. Pablo, however, forcibly opened the gate and brought out dismantled machineries of PPI. [15] On October 4, 2000, the court a quo, now thru Judge Teodoro A. Bay, issued an Order to re-padlock the subject property. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Pablo but the same was denied. [16] Again, upon seeing the gate re-padlocked, Pablo ordered his men to tear down the gate. Thereafter, Pablo occupied and took possession of the entire subject property and opened the same as a resort with swimming pools to the public for a fee with portions of the building rented to several businesses. [17] On May 31, 2005, PPI filed an Omnibus Motion alleging specific acts that were characterized as violative of the court's injunction. [18] On February 20, 2006, the court a quo, this time through herein Judge Jose G. Paneda (Judge Paneda), issued an Order granting the reliefs prayed for in the Omnibus Motion, [19] to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Omnibus Motion is GRANTED. The deputy Sheriff is hereby ordered to conduct an inventory and the defendant to re-padlock the premises and allow the appraiser to enter the same and conduct an inventory of properties and improvements. [20] Considering that the order was not complied with, PPI was again constrained to file a motion to direct the sheriff to re-padlock the subject property which was granted by the RTC in its Order [21] dated June 19, 2009. Hence, a Notice to Vacate was served by the deputy sheriff of the RTC to Pablo asking him to voluntarily tum over the subject property within five days from rec