G.R. No. L-3041; November 29, 1949
P. M. SILVA, petitioner, vs. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, MACARIO M. OFILADA, Clerk of Court of First Instance of Manila, and ESTANISLAO DE OCAMPO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner P.M. Silva was the defendant in an ejectment case filed by respondent Estanislao de Ocampo. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, Silva posted the required supersedeas bond and deposited with the clerk of court the rentals for the premises during the pendency of the appeal. While the case was pending, Ocampo filed petitions to withdraw the deposited rentals. Silva objected, citing a counterclaim for P2,000 that should be applied to the rents. Despite the objections, the respondent judge granted the petitions for withdrawal, and the clerk of court released the deposits to Ocampo. Silva’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the deposited rentals over the objection of the defendant.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. Under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72 (now Rule 70) of the Rules of Court, all moneys deposited by the defendant to stay execution must be held by the court until the final disposition of the appeal and shall be disposed of in accordance with the final judgment. The purpose of the rule is to protect the defendant from harm if the plaintiff’s right to collect the moneys is in issue. Following the precedent in Ocampo Leus vs. Martin, withdrawal is permissible only if the defendant agrees or fails to oppose the petition. Here, Silva actively objected to the withdrawal. Therefore, the respondent judge lacked justification in issuing the orders allowing the withdrawal. The orders were declared null and void. No costs.

AI Generated by Armztrong.