On remand of the case, the MCTC granted respondent's

motion for execution and that led to the issuance of a writ of execution
on 28 June 2001. On 24 January 2002, the MCTC granted respondent's
motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition for failure of the Bueno
sisters to comply with the 22 July 1999 judgment. (Pasion v. Melegrito,
|||

G.R. No. 166558, [March 28, 2007], 548 PHIL 302-313)

The Regional Trial Court anchors its assailed orders on Rule

65, Section 7 of the Rules of Court which provides that the filing of a
petition for certiorari "shall not interrupt the course of the principal
case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction has been issued against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case." However, judicial courtesy must be
exercised when "there is a strong probability that the issues before
the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result
of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court." 58
In Trajano v. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, 59 this Court
expounded on the principle of judicial courtesy and its possible
limitations:
Indeed, we introduced in Eternal Gardens Memorial
Park v. Court of Appeals the principle of judicial courtesy to
justify the suspension of the proceedings before the lower
court even without an injunctive writ or order from the
higher court. In that case, we pronounced that "[d]ue respect
for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical
considerations should have prompted the appellate court to
wait for the final determination of the petition [for certiorari]
before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render
moot exactly what was before this [C]ourt." We subsequently
reiterated the concept of judicial courtesy in Joy Mart
Consolidated Corp. v. Court of Appeals.
We, however, have qualified and limited the
application of judicial courtesy in Go v. Abrogar and Republic
v. Sandiganbayan. In these cases, we expressly delimited the
application of judicial courtesy to maintain the efficacy of
Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and held that the
principle of judicial courtesy applies only "if there is a strong
probability that the issues before the higher court would be
 rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation
of the proceedings in the lower court." Through these cases,
we clarified that the principle of judicial courtesy remains to
be the exception rather than the rule. 60 (Citations omitted)
While judicial courtesy is a mere exception to the rule, it will
apply if there is a strong probability that the issue brought before
the Court of Appeals would be rendered moot and nugatory by the
action of the lower court. aDSIHc

Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court erred when it continued

to hear the merits of the dissolution of the writ of preliminary
attachment despite the pendency of the same issue before the
Court of Appeals. Judicial courtesy should have prevented the trial
court from approving the lifting of the preliminary attachment as
the petition for certiorari was already pending in the Court of
Appeals. Thus, any further action of the trial court regarding the
preliminary attachment would interfere with the findings of the
Court of Appeals and render the same moot.
(Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. v. Pacific Sugar Holdings Corp., G.R.
|||

No. 241333, [June 27, 2022])