Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-56362. May 28, 1988.]

TOMASITA AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO and SPOUSES EUFEMIA R. ROXAS, and FLORO ROXAS, Respondents.

Cezar C. Maniti for Petitioner.

Roman, Daguna and Associates Law Offices for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


On April 22, 1980, a complaint for the collection of a sum of money was f led by spouses Eufemia Roxas and Floro Roxas against Tomasita Aquino in the Court of First Instance of Bataan with a prayer for preliminary attachment docketed as Civil Case No. 4627. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on April 30, 1980 by the trial court as prayed for upon a bond filed by the plaintiffs in the amount of P20,000.00 which was enforced by the sheriff by levying and placing under custodio legis certain properties of the defendant. An answer was filed by defendant with counterclaim alleging as defense compensation with the claim of plaintiffs. On July 11, 1980, pre-trial briefs were filed by the parties and on July 22, 1980 plaintiffs filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings to which an opposition was filed by defendant. On December 17, 1980, a decision was rendered by the trial court, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises above considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former, the sum of P53,280, with legal rate of interest thereon from the date of filing of the instant complaint; further, to pay the attorney’s fee of plaintiffs in the amount of P2,000.00 and cost of this suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appeal was seasonably filed by defendant on January 26, 1981 by filing a notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal stating therein that she was appealing to the Supreme Court. On February 6, 1981, a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal was filed by plaintiff, to which an opposition was filed by the defendant. In an order of February 16, 1981, the trial court granted the motion.

On February 25, 1981, the trial court issued an order disapproving the notice of appeal for "want of ground to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence on March 9, 1981, the defendant filed the herein petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction alleging, among others, that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting the execution pending appeal of its decision; that petitioner has a good defense of compensation against the claim of private respondents; that the disapproval of the notice of appeal on technical ground deprived petitioner of her right to. appeal which is a great injustice and thus petitioner prays that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining respondent judge and sheriff from implementing the writ of execution pending appeal, petitioner offering to file a bond, and to order the trial court to elevate the records of the case for a review of the decision being appealed from.

In a resolution of March 13, 1981, this Court resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to require respondents to comment within ten (10) days from receipt thereof and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from implementing the writ of execution pending appeal dated February 16, 1981 or any other writs which may be issued thereafter in Civil Case No. 4627.

The required comment having been filed by private respondents on July 13, 1981, this Court gave due course to the petition and required both parties to submit their simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice. The memorandum of the parties have all been filed, and so the case is now submitted for decision.cralawnad

The applicable provision on execution pending appeal is Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Execution pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party the court may, in its discretion, order execution to issue even before the expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. If a record on appeal is filed thereafter, the motion and the special order shall be included therein.

From the foregoing provision an order of execution pending appeal maybe issued by the trial court before the expiration of the time to appeal but not after the appeal is perfected. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal is deemed perfected if the notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal are filed within the reglementary period and upon approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond other than a cash bond. 1 Thereafter, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case. 2

In the present case the notice of appeal, record on appeal and appeal bond were filed by petitioner on January 26, 1981, within the period of appeal. The respondent court however, after it issued the order of execution pending appeal of February 16, 1981, issued an order disapproving the petitioner’s notice of appeal on February 25, 1981 for alleged want of ground to appeal the decision with the Supreme Court. However, on March 11, 1981, after the herein petition was filed, respondent court issued another order setting aside its previous order of February 25, 1981 and approving the appeal.

No doubt respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the notice of appeal to this Court. Its role under the law is to approve or disapprove the record on appeal and the appeal bond but not a notice of appeal. 3 A notice of appeal does not require the approval of the trial court. Obviously, realizing his error, the respondent judge recalled and set aside the said order disapproving the notice of appeal. Thus, this issue is now moot and academic.

The next issue that should be resolved is the validity of the order of execution pending appeal. Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is explicit when it required that such an order should be based upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. The compelling circumstances warranting the prompt execution of the judgment is that it may become illusory or the prevailing party may be unable to enjoy it. 4 A good reason for ordering advance execution is that the appeal is being taken for purposes of delay; 5 or that the defeated party is in imminent danger of insolvency 6 or when defendants failed to file a supersedeas bond to forestall the immediate execution of the decision. 7

In the present case, the petitioner opposed the motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that certain properties belonging to petitioner consisting of machineries in her printing shop have been attached and are now in custodia legis which is sufficient guaranty to protect the rights of private respondents. However, in the questioned order of February 16, 1981, the trial court observed that the attachment bond was only in the amount of P20,000.00 but the judgment in favor of private respondents was P53,280.00.

In resolving the incident, the trial court in the same order evaluated the merit of the appeal and after the discussion of the defense arrived at the conclusion that "defendant’s appeal is nothing more than just for the sole purpose of delay, and besides, if the extraordinary motion of plaintiffs is not given due course, the P53,000.00 worth justly due to them would be very much less, unjustly, in the years to come when the appeal may eventually be decided."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order. The respondent judge did not even care to verify the claim of petitioner that the properties that were levied upon by way of attachment were more than sufficient to satisfy the judgment rendered in favor of private respondents. He just assumed that because the bond for the attachment filed by respondents was only P20,000.00 the properties of plaintiffs in custodia legis must be of the same value. He should have verified the real worth of the properties attached which may render execution pending appeal unnecessary.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Moreover, the reason of the petitioner that the appeal was only for the purpose of delay as there is no merit in the same is also devoid of merit. It is not for the trial judge to determine the merit of a decision he rendered. That is the role of the appellate court. 8 It is inconceivable that the judge would not sustain an appeal from a resolution or decision penned by him.

WHEREFORE, the herein petition is hereby GRANTED and the questioned Order of the respondent judge of February 16, 1981 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE as null and void and the restraining order of this Court issued on March 13, 1981 against the implementation of the said order is hereby made permanent. Let the records of this case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the appeal of petitioner on the merits of the decision of the respondent court of December 17, 1980. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sections 3 and 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 39, the record on appeal had been dispensed with except in special proceeding or multiple appeals under applicable provision of the Rules of Court.

2. Sumulong v. Imperial, 51 Phil. 251; De Leon v. De los Santos, 78 Phil. 461; Vda. de Sy Quia v. Concepcion & Palma, 60 Phil. 186; Conejero, Et. Al. v. CA, L-6522, August 25, 1954; LVM Transportation Co., Et. Al. v. Hon. Enrique Fernando, G.R. No. L-9136, May 31, 1958 and Aguirre v. Macadaeg, 55 O.G. 2088.

3. Section 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court.

4. Crisanto S. Borja v. Encarnacion, L-1479, May 30, 1951; De Leon v. Soriano, L-7648, September 17, 1954.

5. Iloilo Trading Center & Exchange v. Rodas, 73 Phil. 327; Presbitero v. Rodas, 73 Phil. 300, 303; Rodriguez v. CA, G.R. No. L-12534, May 23, 1959; Javellana v. Querubin, L-26166, July 30, 1966; De Vera v. Santos, L-24351, September 22, 1957.

6. Baldisimo v. Court of First Instance of Capiz, L-22261, September 29, 1967: Lao v. Mencias, L-23554, November 25, 1967; Santos v. Mojica, 26 SCRA 607, 610-611.

7. Javellana v. Querubin, supra: Haw Pia v. San Jose, 78 Phil. 238; Santos v. CA, 95 Phil. 360; David v. Miranda, L-3215, Sept. 28, 1954; Danz v. L. Cosida, L-15950, April 20, 1961; Balingot v. Mascardo, 58 O.G. 8239 and Santos v. Mojica, supra 611.

8. Republic v. Gomez, 5 SCRA 368.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.