ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136805. March 29, 2000]

DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., vs. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 29 2000.

G.R. No. 136805 (Diesel Construction Company, Inc. vs. Jollibee Foods Corporation.)

In its Motion for Reconsideration dated March 1, 2000, petitioner argues that the "Decision x x x strayed from the x x x issues [raised by the parties]." While it is true that ordinarily, appellate courts may resolve only issues specifically raised by the parties in their pleadings, it is equally true that questions necessarily included in such issues may be ruled upon to the end that justice is served.1 Logronio v. Taleseo, G.R. No. 134602, August 6, 1999; Dando v. Fraser, 227 SCRA 126, October 8, 1993; Espina v. CA, 215 SCRA 454, November 6, 1992.

In the present case, the question of whether the posting of a supersedeas bond justifies the stay of execution pending appeal which was ordered by the court below necessarily includes an inquiry into the issue of whether, in the first place, the order granting extra-ordinary execution was proper. Should this Court rule on the supersedeas bond question without first delving on the basis for its issuance, it would then be agreeing that the basis for its issuance was correct. But the legal truth is that the Order granting execution pending appeal was flawed. Logic dictates that such basis flaw should first be addressed before any other matter flowing out of its can be resolved.

In any event, even if the Court goes along with petitioner's perception of the issues, the Petition would still be denied. Verily, the grant or stay of immediate execution is not a contest to be won by the party which could post the more expensive bond, but a matter of which party has the better reason.2 See NAWASA v. Catolico, 19 SCRA 980, 984, April 27, 1967; Rodriguez v. CA, 105 Phil. 777, 782, May 23, 1959; De Leon v. Soriano, 95 Phil. 806, 815, September 17, 1954.

In the case at bar, both the petitioner and the respondent failed to allege any damage or injury that would qualify as good reason to justify execution pending appeal or a stay thereof.

Petitioner continues to harp on the RTC's grant of execution pending appeal. As alluded to in our Decision, this is now academic because the appeal has been perfected and the CA has issued the contested resolutions on its own authority. Thus, the subjects of this case before us are the CA Resolutions of September 21, 1998 and December 22, 1998, not the trial court's Special Order of December 4, 1997.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality. No further pleadings will be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE