Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > May 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28454 May 18, 1978 - EMILIO APACHECHA, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28454. May 18, 1978.]

EMILIO APACHECHA and ROSITA OTERO, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE VALERIO V. ROVIRA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Branch IV); EUSTAQUIO AGOS, MARIA BALAJADIA and PACIFICO LUMAUAG, Respondents.

Glicerio G. Gimotea, for Petitioners.

Nicanor D. Sorongon for respondents Eustaquio Agos and Maria Balajadia.

Gellada & Gellada for respondent Pacifico Lumauag.

SYNOPSIS


Pending appeal, respondents filed a supersedeas bond to secure the stay of the immediate execution of a judgment in favor of petitioners. After the appeal was dismissed and the records remanded to respondent court, petitioners moved to enforce the supersedeas bond when the execution against the judgment debtors was returned unsatisfied. Respondent court denied petitioners motion stating that under Section 9 of Rule 58 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 57, in order that a surety may be bound under a bond for damages, the application for damages must be filed before the entry of final judgment and a hearing must be had with notice to surety. Petitioners contended that theirs was not a claim for damages resulting from an improper injunction but a motion to enforce the supersedeas bond filed by respondents to secure the stay of immediate execution which was governed by Section 30 of Rule 39.

The Supreme Court upheld the petitioners and granted the petition.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; FILING OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND. — Execution issued before the expiration of the time to appeal may be stayed upon the approval by the court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the appellant, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case it be affirmed wholly or in part.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN SUPERSEDEAS BOND MAY BE PROCEEDED AGAINST. — The supersedeas bond may be proceeded against on motion before the trial court, with notice to the surety, after the case is remanded to it by the appellate court.

3. BONDS; BOND REFERRED TO IN SECTION 9 OF RULE 58 IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 20 OF RULE 57 IS NOT SUPERSEDEAS BOND. — The bond referred to in Section 9 of Rule 58 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 57 refers to a claim for damages resulting from an improper preliminary injunction which requires the filing of an application for damages before the entry of final judgment and a hearing thereon with notice to surety before it can be proceeded against. It is not identical with the supersedeas bond.

4. APPEAL; JURISDICTION; FACTUAL ISSUES SHOULD BE THRESHED OUT IN THE TRIAL COURT. — Where a claim by one litigant that the parties have already amicably settled their case is denied by the other party, the issue becomes a factual issue which should be threshed out in the trial court.

5. EXECUTION; EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND. — Before execution may issue against a person who files a supersedeas bond, the exact amount of the liability of the judgment debtor, which may not necessarily be the full amount of the bond filed, must be clarified in the lower court.


D E C I S I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Petitioner for certiorari impugning as a grave abuse of discretion the order of respondent judge of September 16, 1967 in Civil Case No. 5911 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, entitled Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero v. Eustaquio Agos and Maria Balajadia, which denied petitioners’ motion praying that private respondent Pacifico Lumauag be made to pay, as surety on the supersedeas bond filed to stay the execution pending appeal of the judgment that petitioners had secured against Agos and Balajadia in the same Civil Case No. 5911, said appeal having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals, ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court, for failure of the appellants to submit the printed record on appeal on time and after the record had been remanded to the trial court and the execution against the judgment debtors had been returned unsatisfied.cralawnad

In denying petitioners’ motion in question, respondent judge sustained the contention of Lumauag that under Section 9 of Rule 58 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 57, and the rulings of the Supreme Court thereunder, in order that a surety may be bound under a bond for damages, the application for damages must be filed before the entry of final judgment and there must be a hearing with notice to the surety. Respondent judge paid no heed to the contention of petitioners that the matter on hand is not a claim for damages in a case of preliminary injunction governed by the rules just referred to but a motion to enforce the supersedeas bond filed by Lumauag and two other persons to secure the stay of the immediate execution of a judgment in favor of petitioners, which is specifically governed by Section 3 of Rule 39 providing thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 3. Stay of execution. — Execution issued before the expiration of the time to appeal may be stayed upon the approval by the court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the appellant, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case it be affirmed wholly or in part. The bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion before the trial court, with notice to the surety, after the case is remanded to it by the appellate court."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petition must be granted. Petitioners are correct that what they seek is not damages resulting from an improper preliminary injunction. Rather, they are after the execution of a judgment in their favor which was stayed on the strength of the supersedeas bond filed by Lumauag. And it appearing that the appeal in question has been finally dismissed and the record of the case has already been remanded to respondent court, the filing of petitioners’ motion seeking relief against private respondent Lumauag was perfectly in order.

Anent Lumauag’s contention in his answer here that apparently, his principals, the judgment debtors, have amicably settled with petitioners, the same was not raised by him in the court below. Besides, it is denied by petitioners and, therefore, becomes a factual issue not appropriate for Us to resolve here. It should be threshed out in the trial court.

Before concluding, however, We deem it opportune to draw attention of the respondent court to the terms of the judgment in issue which reads thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, hereby ordering the defendants to resell to the plaintiffs the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint in consideration of the sum of P3,000.00; the defendants shall execute in favor or, sign and deliver to the plaintiffs, the corresponding deed of sale, otherwise, the Clerk of Court shall execute the same once this decision becomes final and after the plaintiffs shall have deposited with him the sum of P3,000.00 representing the repurchase price of the land; the defendants shall immediately vacate the land and deliver its possession to the plaintiffs; they shall also reimburse the plaintiffs the sum of P8,123.30 for the produce of the land which the defendants received and which the plaintiffs could have received for the period from January, 1961 up to October 27, 1964; to pay a monthly damage of P278.33 beginning November 1, 1964 until possession of the land shall have been delivered to the plaintiffs; pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of P1,000.00, plus the costs." (Page 37, Record.)

Although the questioned order here has already resolved the matter of the execution of the instrument of resale ordered in the above judgment, what needs to be clarified before execution may issue against Lumauag is the exact amount of the liability of the judgment debtors, which does not seem to be necessarily the full amount of the P10,000-supersedeas bond he had filed.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted and the impugned orders of respondent judge of April 22, 1967 and October 21, 1967 are hereby set aside, and said respondent is directed to proceed to act on petitioners’ motion of April 22, 1967 pursuant to the above opinion. Costs against private respondent Lumauag.chanrobles law library

Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25265 May 9, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978 - CONCHITA CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27350-51 May 11, 1978 - WIL WILHEMSEN, INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS BALUYUT

  • G.R. No. L-29217 May 11, 1978 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER PLANT EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32959 May 11, 1978 - JAGUAR TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. JUAN CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38663 and L-40740 May 11, 1978 - JOSE BRIONES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39958 May 11, 1978 - JESUS D. JUREIDINI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41753 May 11, 1978 - JOSE V. HERRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43213 May 11, 1978 - SOCORRO T. AGUILAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43512 May 11, 1978 - ROSALIA VDA. DE RANDOY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47570-71 May 11, 1978 - MONARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31298 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32529 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TY SUI WONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45768 May 12, 1978 - DEMETRIO D. MOLET v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47494 May 15, 1978 - AIDA ROBLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27800 May 16, 1978 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ARSENIO OLMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38006 May 16, 1978 - NATALIA DE LAS ALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA

  • A.C. No. 301 May 18, 1978 - BENITO SACO v. DONATO A. CARDONA

  • G.R. No. L-24375 May 18, 1978 - TAN BENG v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27155 May 18, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27732 May 18, 1978 - ANGELES CHIQUILLO, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28454 May 18, 1978 - EMILIO APACHECHA, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29276 May 18, 1978 - TESTATE ESTATE OF FELIX J. DE GUZMAN v. CRISPINA DE GUZMAN-CARILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29466 May 18, 1978 - ABOITIZ AND CO., INC., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-34770 May 18, 1978 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40885 May 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL GARGOLES

  • G.R. No. L-44351 May 18, 1978 - HOECHST PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FRANCISCO TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-1768 May 19, 1978 - ANGELES G. DACANAY v. CONRADO B. LEONARDO, SR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28324-5 May 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL MARCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35093 May 19, 1978 - E.S. BALTAO & CO., INC. v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978 - SWEET LINE, INC. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978 - EMMA C. ONA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS

  • A.M. No. 1530-MJ May 30, 1978 - NENITA CASTAÑETO v. BUENAVENTURA S. NIDOY

  • G.R. No. L-32850 May 30, 1978 - ROGELIO LAFIGUERA, ET AL. v. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37162 May 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WARLITO C. PLATEROS

  • G.R. No. L-38375 May 30, 1978 - ALFONSA TIMBAS VDA. DE PALOPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29262 May 31, 1978 - SALVADOR BARENG v. SHINTOIST SHRINE & JAPANESE CHARITY BUREAU

  • G.R. No. L-30355 May 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UNION KAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31303-04 May 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37174 May 31, 1978 - LITTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-CCLU v. LITTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37697. May 31, 1978.

    SEGUNDO ABANDO v. CA

  • G.R. No. L-42713 May 31, 1978 - NORBERTA MARTILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43358 May 31, 1978 - PRESENTACION D. DELANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43811 May 31, 1978 - CAYETANO FRANCISCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44563 May 31, 1978 - GERONIMO REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47263 May 31, 1978 - HACIENDA DOLORES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47536 May 31, 1978 - WILLIAM H. QUASHA v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.