G.R. NO. 151376 - FILOMENO G. GONZALES, P E T I T I O N E R, VS. QUIRINO G. GONZALES, REPRESENTED BY EUFEMIA GONZALES, R E S P O N D E N T.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Filomeno Gonzales against the defendant Eufemia Gonzales ordering the latter the following: 1) Ordering the defendant Eufemia Gonzales, and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate and surrender peacefully the subject premises to the plaintiff; 2) Ordering the defendant to pay rentals from November 22, 1995 up to the present in the amount of P5,000.00 a month until defendants have vacated the leased premises, as reasonable compensation of the use of the premises; 3) To pay the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and 4) To pay the cost of suit. [8] Respondent seasonably appealed [9] the foregoing decision to the RTC, which docketed the appeal as Civil Case No. Q-97-32061. In an Order dated 18 September 1997, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 93, directed respondent to "x x x submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, x x x." [10] Further, it warned the party that "[f]ailure on the part of the defendant-appellant to file a memorandum as directed x x x shall be a cause for the dismissal of the appeal." [11] Instead of filing the necessary memorandum of appeal, however, respondent filed a motion to consolidate [12] the present case with the one she instituted against petitioner for annulment of title filed before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 84, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-30360. On 29 October 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal [13] essentially moving for the immediate execution of the appealed judgment of the MTC, as provided for under Section 19 [14] , Rule 70 Rules of Court. The motion alleged as basis respondent's failure to: 1) file a supresedeas bond; and 2) periodically deposit the rentals falling due during the pendency of the appeal. On 31 October 1997, the motion to consolidate the two abovementioned cases was, denied [15] for lack of merit. On 07 November 1997, the court a quo ( RTC) ordered [16] the issuance of the writ of execution. On 11 November 1997, the court a quo then directed [17] the dismissal of respondent's appeal for failing to file the necessary memorandum of appeal, to wit: Before this court is an Appeal from a decision rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 35, Quezon City, in an action for Ejectment filed by defendant-appellant through counsel. A perusal of the record reveals that defendant-appellant had failed to comply with the court order dated 18 September 1997 directing compliance with Section 7 (b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court. In view thereof, the court hereby orders the dismissal of the appeal. On 03 December 1997, respondent filed an Omnibus Urgent Motion for Reconsideration . [18] In said omnibus motion, she prayed for the reconsideration of the 07 and 11 November 1997 Orders of the court a quo . As regards the 07 November 1997 Order directing the issuance of a writ of execution, respondent's counsel argued that respondent'