Air Transportation Office vs CA

7/23/2019 Air Transportation Office vs CA

1/13

G.R. No. 173616 June 25, 2014

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO),Petitioner,

vs.

HON. CORT OF APPEA!S (NINETEENTH "I#ISION) $n% &ERNIE G. 'IAE,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

!EONAR"O"E CASTRO, J.:

Note: Rule 70; Rule 42 sec 8 residual jurisdiction IR to Rule 70 Sec 21 immediate

execution; Writ of Preliminar Injuction is not !ro!erl issued " #$ %ere since t%ere is

no clear le&al ri&%ts %ere ' actuall !analo na %n&&an& S# an& P $()* +rit of execution

nln& an& issue ditto, di n&a da!at nire-i-e un& motion for execution .asi +it%in / rs

nmn

$lso* +ort% notin& is t%e !rinci!le t%at in R70 ministerial at di discretionar

On the other hand, execution of the RTCs jud!ent under Section "#, Ru$e %& is not discretionar'

execution (ut a !inisteria$ dut' of the RTC.)*It is not overned (' Section ", Ru$e + of the Ru$es of

Court (ut (' Section *, Ru$e + of the Ru$es of Court on jud!ents not sta'ed (' appea$. In this

connection, it is not covered (' the enera$ ru$e, that the jud!ent of the RTC is sta'ed (' appea$ to

the Court of -ppea$s under Section /(0, Ru$e *" of the Ru$es of Court, (ut constitutes an exception

to the said ru$e.

The RTCs dut' to issue a 1rit of execution under Section "# of Ru$e %& is !inisteria$ and !a' (e

co!pe$$ed (' !anda!us.*Section "# of Ru$e %& presupposes that the defendant in a forci($e entr'

or un$a1fu$ detainer case is unsatisfied 1ith the RTCs jud!ent and appea$s to a hiher court. Itauthori2es the RTC to i!!ediate$' issue a 1rit of execution 1ithout prejudice to the appea$ ta3in its

due course.)&The rationa$e of i!!ediate execution of jud!ent in an eject!ent case is to avoid

injustice to a $a1fu$ possessor.)#Neverthe$ess, it shou$d (e stressed that the appe$$ate court !a' sta'

the 1rit of execution shou$d circu!stances so re4uire. )"

Puede n!n !issue n 5PI an C- pero caveat666 7asi na dapat hindi dou(tfu$ an riht 3undi

nu$$ified un order o 1rit of 5PI8889-D 3asi6

To reiterate, despite the i!!ediate$' executor' nature of the jud!ent of the RTC in eject!ent

cases, 1hich jud!ent is not sta'ed (' an appea$ ta3en therefro!, the Court of -ppea$s !a' issue a

1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction that 1i$$ restrain or enjoin the execution of the RTCs jud!ent. In theexercise of such authorit', the Court of -ppea$s shou$d constant$' (e a1are that the rant of a

pre$i!inar' injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court 1ith the caveat that it

shou$d (e !ade 1ith reat caution.)%

- 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction is an extraordinar' event 1hich !ust (e ranted on$' in the face of

actua$ and existin su(stantia$ rihts.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt54


2/13

G.R. No. 173616 June 25, 2014

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO),Petitioner,

vs.

HON. CORT OF APPEA!S (NINETEENTH "I#ISION) $n% &ERNIE G. 'IAE,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

!EONAR"O"E CASTRO, J.:

This petition for certiorari and prohi(ition of the -ir Transportation Office /-TO0 see3s the nu$$ification

of the Court of -ppea$s: Reso$ution#dated ;arch ", "&&< and Reso$ution"dated ;a' +&, "&&< in

C-89.R. CE=8SP No.


3/13

The ;TCC su(se4uent$' rendered a Decision*dated ;a' "%, "&&" the dispositive part of 1hich

reads>

5AEREBORE, jud!ent is rendered findin ;ia4ue to (e un$a1fu$$' detainin the fo$$o1in

pre!ises and orders hi!, his !en and privies to>

a. vacate the &&8s4uare !eter Refresh!ent Par$or frontin the Ne1 Ter!ina$ =ui$din8

I$oi$o -irport. ;ia4ue is further ordered to pa' the -TO the renta$ and concessionaire

privi$ee fees accruin fro! Nove!(er #< to Octo(er "&&&, tota$in P* Civi$ Case No. &"8"%""

;ia4ue appea$ed the ;TCC Decision to the RTC of I$oi$o Cit', =ranch "*. It 1as doc3eted as Civi$

Case No. &"8"%"". The RTC, in its Decision


4/13

-ppea$s Decision 1as sufficient$' sho1n. The !otion for reconsideration of ;ia4ue 1as denied 1ith

fina$it'.##

The proceedins on execution

-s an incident of C-89.R. SP No. %*+, the Court of -ppea$s issued on Be(ruar' "%, "&&* ate!porar' restrainin order /TRO0 effective for a period of

5herefore, in vie1 of the a(ove consideration, the court finds !erit in the reasons iven in the

!otion of the -TO and here(' 9rants the issuance of a 5rit of Execution.

Pursuant to Section "#, Ru$e %& of the #% Ru$es of Civi$ Procedure, 1hich !andates that thejud!ent of this Court (ein i!!ediate$' executor' in cases of this nature, $et a 1rit of execution

sha$$ issue, orderin the sheriff of this Court to effect its Decision dated une %, "&&+, affir!in the

Decision of the ;TCC, =ranch +, I$oi$o Cit'.

Burnish copies of this order to the -sst. So$icitor -$!ira To!a!pos of the Office of the So$icitor

9enera$ and -tt'. Rex Rico, counse$ for ;ia4ue.#)

;ia4ue souht reconsideration of the a(ove Order (ut the RTC denied the !otion in an

Order#


5/13

Decisions of the ;TCC and the RTC 1hi$e C-89.R. SP No. %*+ is sti$$ pendin. Ao1ever, on une

#), "&&), (efore the concerned sheriffs received a cop' of the Reso$ution dated une #*, "&&), the

said sheriffs i!p$e!ented the 1rit of execution and de$ivered the possession of the fo$$o1in

pre!ises to the -TO>

/a0 the Restaurant@9ift Shop inside the I$oi$o Ter!ina$ =ui$din in the reduced area of #+s4uare !eters? and

/(0 the area 1hich ;ia4ue occupied or used incident to his operation of the Porterae

Service 1ithin the I$oi$o -irport.

The sheriffs 1ho i!p$e!ented the 1rit then fi$ed a return of service"and issued reports of partia$

de$iver' of possession."Ao1ever, ;ia4ue su(se4uent$' reained possession of the said pre!ises

on the strenth of the Court of -ppea$s Reso$ution dated une #*, "&&). +&

On Be(ruar' , "&&


6/13

the decision pro!u$ated (' this Court in C-89.R. SP No. %*+ on -pri$ ", "&&). Gnder the

attendant circu!stances, it appears that the respondent jude orthe RTC in I$oi$o Cit' has no

jurisdiction to order the issuance of such 1rit of execution (ecause 1e ave due course to the

petition for revie1 fi$ed 1ith us in C-89.R. SP No. %*+ and, in fact, rendered a decision on the

!erit in said case, there(' divestin the RTC in I$oi$o Cit' of jurisdiction over the case as provided for

in the third pararaph of Section /a0 of Ru$e *"of the #% Revised Ru$es of Court. In Cit' of ;ani$avs. Court of -ppea$s, "&* SCR- +

HThe ru$e is that, if the jud!ent of the !etropo$itan tria$ court is appea$ed to the RTC and the

decision of the $atter itse$f is e$evated to the C- 1hose decision thereafter (eca!e fina$, the case

shou$d (e re!anded throuh the RTC to the !etropo$itan tria$ court for execution.H

5AEREBORE, in vie1 of the foreoin pre!ises, a 5RIT OB PREFI;IN-R INGNCTION is

here(' ordered or caused to (e issued (' us enjoinin the respondent jude, Sheriffs ;arcia$ =.

Fa!(uso, 5inston T. Euia, Ca!i$o I. Divinaracia, r. and Eric 9eore S. Funtao and a$$ other

persons actin for and in their (eha$ves, fro! enforcin the orders issued (' the respondent judeon ;arch "&, "&&< and ;arch "*, "&&


7/13

(0 The $ea$ issues raised (' the petition in C-89.R. CE=SP No.


8/13

This Court, in a Reso$ution**dated -uust #*, "&&

Sec. "#. -ppea$. 8 The jud!ent or fina$ order sha$$ (e appea$a($e to the appropriate Reiona$ Tria$

Court 1hich sha$$ decide the sa!e in accordance 1ith Section "" of =atas Pa!(ansa =$. #". The

decision of the Reiona$ Tria$ Court in civi$ cases overned (' this Ru$e, inc$udin forci($e entr' and

un$a1fu$ detainer, sha$$ (e i!!ediate$' executor', 1ithout prejudice to a further appea$ that !a' (e

ta3en therefro!. Section #& of Ru$e %& sha$$ (e dee!ed repea$ed. /E!phasis and underscorinsupp$ied.0

The a(ove provisions are supp$e!ented and reinforced (' Section *, Ru$e + and Section /(0, Ru$e

*" of the Ru$es of Court 1hich respective$' provide>

Sec. *. ud!ents not sta'ed (' appea$. J ud!ents in actions for injunction, receivership,

accountin and support, and such other jud!ents as are no1 or !a' hereafter (e dec$ared to (e

i!!ediate$' executor', sha$$ (e enforcea($e after their rendition and sha$$ not (e sta'ed (' an

appea$ ta3en therefro!, un$ess other1ise ordered (' the tria$ court. On appea$ therefro!, the

appe$$ate court in its discretion !a' !a3e an order suspendin, !odif'in, restorin or rantin the

injunction, receivership, accountin, or a1ard of support.

The sta' of execution sha$$ (e upon such ter!s as to (ond or other1ise as !a' (e considered

proper for the securit' or protection of the rihts of the adverse part'.

x x x x

Sec. . Perfection of appea$? effect thereof.J
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt44


9/13

/a0 Gpon the ti!e$' fi$in of a petition for revie1 and the pa'!ent of the correspondin doc3et and

other $a1fu$ fees, the appea$ is dee!ed perfected as to the petitioner.

The Reiona$ Tria$ Court $oses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appea$s fi$ed in

due ti!e and the expiration of the ti!e to appea$ of the other parties.

Ao1ever, (efore the Court of -ppea$s ives due course to the petition, the Reiona$ Tria$ Court !a'

issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rihts of the parties 1hich do not invo$ve an'

!atter $itiated (' the appea$, approve co!pro!ises, per!it appea$s of indient $itiants, order

execution pendin appea$ in accordance 1ith Section " of Ru$e +, and a$$o1 1ithdra1a$ of the

appea$.

/(0 Except in civi$ cases decided under the Ru$es on Su!!ar' Procedure, the appea$ sha$$ sta' the

jud!ent or fina$ order un$ess the Court of -ppea$s, the $a1, or these Ru$es sha$$ provide other1ise.

/E!phases supp$ied.0

The tota$it' of a$$ the provisions a(ove sho1s the fo$$o1in sinificant characteristics of the RTCjud!ent in an eject!ent case appea$ed to it>

/#0 The jud!ent of the RTC aainst the defendant8appe$$ant is i!!ediate$' executor',

1ithout prejudice to a further appea$ that !a' (e ta3en therefro!? and

/"0 Such jud!ent of the RTC is not sta'ed (' an appea$ ta3en therefro!, un$ess other1ise

ordered (' the RTC or, in the appe$$ate courts discretion, suspended or !odified.

The first characteristic 88 the jud!ent of the RTC is i!!ediate$' executor' 88 is e!phasi2ed (' the

fact that no reso$utor' condition has (een i!posed that 1i$$ prevent or sta' the execution of the

RTCs jud!ent.*)

The sinificance of this !a' (e (etter appreciated (' co!parin Section "# ofRu$e %& 1ith its precursor, Section #&, Ru$e %& of the #

Sec. #&. Sta' of execution on appea$ to Court of -ppea$s or Supre!e Court. J 5here defendant

appea$s fro! a jud!ent of the Court of Birst Instance, execution of said jud!ent, 1ith respect to

the restoration of possession, sha$$ not (e sta'ed un$ess the appe$$ant deposits the sa!e a!ounts

and 1ithin the periods referred to in section of this ru$e to (e disposed of in the sa!e !anner as

therein provided.

Gnder the o$d provision, the procedure on appea$ fro! the RTCs jud!ent to the Court of -ppea$s

1as, 1ith the exception of the need for a supersedeas (ond 1hich 1as not app$ica($e, virtua$$' the

sa!e as the procedure on appea$ of the ;TCs jud!ent to the RTC. Thus, in the conte!p$atedrecourse to the Court of -ppea$s, the defendant, after perfectin his appea$, cou$d a$so prevent the

i!!ediate execution of the jud!ent (' !a3in the periodic deposit of renta$s durin the pendenc'

of the appea$ and there(' correspondin$' prevent restitution of the pre!ises to the p$aintiff 1ho had

a$read' t1ice vindicated his c$ai! to the propert' in the t1o $o1er courts. On the other hand, under

the a!endator' procedure introduced (' the present Section "# of Ru$e %&, the jud!ent of the

RTC sha$$ (e i!!ediate$' executor' and can accordin$' (e enforced forth1ith. It sha$$ not (e sta'ed

(' the !ere continuin deposit of !onth$' renta$s (' the dispossess or durin the pendenc' of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt45


10/13

case in the Court of -ppea$s or this Court, a$thouh such execution of the jud!ent sha$$ (e 1ithout

prejudice to that appea$ ta3in its due course. This reiterates Section "# of the Revised Ru$e on

Su!!ar' Procedure 1hich rep$aced the appe$$ate procedure in, and repea$ed, the for!er Section

#&, Ru$e %& of the #


11/13

Discretionar' execution is authori2ed 1hi$e the tria$ court, 1hich rendered the jud!ent souht to (e

executed, sti$$ has jurisdiction over the case as the period to appea$ has not 'et $apsed and is in

possession of either the oriina$ record or the record on appea$, as the case !a' (e, at the ti!e of

the fi$in of the !otion for execution. It is part of the tria$ courts residua$ po1ers, or those po1ers

1hich it retains after $osin jurisdiction over the case as a resu$t of the perfection of the appea$. )+-s a

ru$e, the jud!ent of the RTC, rendered in the exercise of its appe$$ate jurisdiction, (ein souht to(e executed in a discretionar' execution is sta'ed (' the appea$ to the Court of -ppea$s pursuant to

Section /(0, Ru$e *" of the Ru$es of Court. On the other hand, execution of the RTCs jud!ent

under Section "#, Ru$e %& is not discretionar' execution (ut a !inisteria$ dut' of the RTC.)*It is not

overned (' Section ", Ru$e + of the Ru$es of Court (ut (' Section *, Ru$e + of the Ru$es of Court

on jud!ents not sta'ed (' appea$. In this connection, it is not covered (' the enera$ ru$e, that the

jud!ent of the RTC is sta'ed (' appea$ to the Court of -ppea$s under Section /(0, Ru$e *" of the

Ru$es of Court, (ut constitutes an exception to the said ru$e. In connection 1ith the second

characteristic of the RTC jud!ent in an eject!ent case appea$ed to it, the conse4uence of the

a(ove distinctions (et1een discretionar' execution and the execution of the RTCs jud!ent in an

eject!ent case on appea$ to the Court of -ppea$s is that the for!er !a' (e avai$ed of in the RTC

on$' (efore the Court of -ppea$s ives due course to the appea$ 1hi$e the $atter !a' (e avai$ed of inthe RTC at an' stae of the appea$ to the Court of -ppea$s. =ut then aain, in the $atter case, the

Court of -ppea$s !a' sta' the 1rit of execution issued (' the RTC shou$d circu!stances so

re4uire.))Cit' of Naa v. Aon. -suncion)

This is not to sa' that the $osin defendant in an eject!ent case is 1ithout recourse to avoid

i!!ediate execution of the RTC decision. The defendant !a' x x x appea$ said jud!ent to the

Court of -ppea$s and therein app$' for a 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction. Thus, as he$d in =enedicto v.

Court of -ppea$s, even if RTC jud!ents in un$a1fu$ detainer cases are i!!ediate$' executor',

pre$i!inar' injunction !a' sti$$ (e ranted. /Citation o!itted.0

To reiterate, despite the i!!ediate$' executor' nature of the jud!ent of the RTC in eject!entcases, 1hich jud!ent is not sta'ed (' an appea$ ta3en therefro!, the Court of -ppea$s !a' issue a

1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction that 1i$$ restrain or enjoin the execution of the RTCs jud!ent. In the

exercise of such authorit', the Court of -ppea$s shou$d constant$' (e a1are that the rant of a

pre$i!inar' injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court 1ith the caveat that it

shou$d (e !ade 1ith reat caution.)%

- 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction is an extraordinar' event 1hich !ust (e ranted on$' in the face of

actua$ and existin su(stantia$ rihts. The dut' of the court ta3in coni2ance of a pra'er for a 1rit of

pre$i!inar' injunction is to deter!ine 1hether the re4uisites necessar' for the rant of an injunction

are present in the case (efore it. In the a(sence of the sa!e, and 1here facts are sho1n to (e

1antin in (rinin the !atter 1ithin the conditions for its issuance, the anci$$ar'1rit !ust (e struc3do1n for havin (een rendered in rave a(use of discretion.)

In this case, the decisions of the ;TCC in Civi$ Case No. /+0, of the RTC in Civi$ Case No. &"8

"%"", and of the Court of -ppea$s in C-9.R. SP No. %*+ unani!ous$' reconi2ed the riht of the

-TO to possession of the propert' and the correspondin o($iation of ;ia4ue to i!!ediate$' vacate

the su(ject pre!ises. This !eans that the ;TCC, the RTC, and the Court of -ppea$s a$$ ru$ed that

;ia4ue does not have an' riht to continue in possession of the said pre!ises. It is therefore
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_173616_2014.html#fnt58


12/13

pu22$in ho1 the Court of -ppea$s justified its issuance of the 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction 1ith the

s1eepin state!ent that ;ia4ue Happears to have a c$ear $ea$ riht to ho$d on to the pre!ises

$eased (' hi! fro! -TO at $east unti$ such ti!e 1hen he sha$$ have (een du$' ejected therefro! (' a

1rit of execution of jud!ent caused to (e issued (' the ;TCC in I$oi$o Cit', 1hich is the court of

oriin of the decision pro!u$ated (' this Court in C-89.R. SP No. %*+.H Gnfortunate$', in its

Reso$ution dated ;a' +&, "&&< rantin a 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction in ;ia4ues favor, the Courtof -ppea$s did not state the source or (asis of ;ia4ues Hc$ear $ea$ riht to ho$d on to the said

pre!ises.H This is fata$.

In Nisce v. E4uita($e PCI =an3, Inc.,)this Court stated that, in rantin or dis!issin an app$ication

for a 1rit of pre$i!inar' injunction, the court !ust state in its order the findins and conc$usions

(ased on the evidence and the $a1. This is to ena($e the appe$$ate court to deter!ine 1hether the

tria$ court co!!itted rave a(use of its discretion a!ountin to excess or $ac3 of jurisdiction in

reso$vin, one 1a' or the other, the p$ea for injunctive re$ief. In the a(sence of proof of a $ea$ riht

and the injur' sustained (' one 1ho see3s an injunctive 1rit, an order for the issuance of a 1rit of

pre$i!inar' injunction 1i$$ (e nu$$ified. Thus, 1here the riht of one 1ho see3s an in junctive 1rit is

dou(tfu$ or disputed, a pre$i!inar' injunction is not proper. The possi(i$it' of irrepara($e da!ae1ithout proof of an actua$ existin riht is not a round for a pre$i!inar' injunction.

The so$e (asis of the Court of -ppea$s in issuin its Reso$ution dated ;a' +&, "&&< is its vie1 that

the RTC Hhas no jurisdiction to order the issuance of the 1rit of executionH (ecause, 1hen it ave

due course to the petition for revie1 in C-89.R. SP No. %*+, the RTC 1as a$read' divested of

jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the third pararaph of Section /a0, Ru$e *" of the Ru$es of

Court. The Court of -ppea$s is !ista3en. It disreards (oth /#0 the i!!ediate$' executor' nature of

the jud!ent of the RTC in eject!ent cases, and /"0 the ru$e that such jud!ent of the RTC is not

sta'ed (' an appea$ ta3en there fro!. It inores the nature of the RTCs function to issue a 1rit of

execution of its jud!ent in an eject!ent case as !inisteria$ and not discretionar'.

The RTC 1as va$id$' exercisin its jurisdiction pursuant to Section "#, Ru$e %& of the Ru$es of Court

1hen it issued the 1rits of execution dated -uust #


13/13

This Court notes that the controvers' (et1een the parties in this case has (een undu$' protracted,

considerin that the decisions of the ;TCC, the RTC, the Court of -ppea$s, and this Court in favor of

the -TO and aainst ;ia4ue on the eject!ent case are a$read' fina$ and executor'. The Court of

-ppea$s shou$d therefore proceed expeditious$' in reso$vin C-89.R. CE=SP No.

Air Transportation Office vs CA

Documents

Transcript of Air Transportation Office vs CA