You are on page 1of 2

Case Name: Eribelto G. Valencia v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CARLOS C. OFILADA, By: AMER.

Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Branch XL, Third Judicial Region, Deputy Sheriff Topic:
GR No. 89431 executions, when
Date: April 25, 1990 stayed
1. On July 6, 1984, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 7554-M in RTC of Bulacan for the rescission of a lease contract over a
24-hectare fishpond in Bulacan.
2. Private respondents filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages.
3. During the pendency of the case, the lease contract expired and the defendants therein peacefully surrendered the
fishpond to therein plaintiff.
4. Consequently, the court a quo declared that the plaintiff's prayer for rescission of contract had become moot and
academic and the only remaining issue for adjudication was the matter of damages claimed by the defendants.
5. The trial court awarded P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages to each defendant and
further ordered plaintiff to pay P30,000.00 as attorney's fees, aside from the costs of suit.
6. On January 10, 1989, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On the same day respondent judge issued an order that the
notice be given due course and directing the records of the case be forwarded to C.A.
7. On January 17, 1989, Respondents filed a motion for execution pending appeal alleging:
A. Under section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court a writ of execution may be issued to enforce a judgment before the
expiration of the period to appeal upon showing good reasons.
B. Under jurisprudence this court already held that filling of the bond by the successful party is a good reason for
C. Pursuant to above mentioned, Defendant move that writ of execution be issued pending appeal to enforce judgment
and we (defendant) hereby offers to post a bond in such amount the honorable court my deem adequate.
8. On March 6, 1989, Respondent judge granted the motion for execution pending appeal despite opposition by herein
9. Defendants filed a bond of P300,000.
10. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, on the ground that "an offer of a bond for
immediate execution of judgment is a good ground for execution pending appeal" and "execution pending appeal may
be granted as long as movant files a good and sufficient surety."
11. On April 10, 1989, the trial court issued a writ of execution pending appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals that was dismiss. Hence this petition.

Whether the Respondent judge gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
ordered the execution pending appeal on the basis of filing of bond. OPO grabe ka judge ..

1. Conformably with Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in order that there may be a discretionary issuance of a
writ of execution pending appeal the following requisites must be satisfied:
(A) There must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
(B) There must be a good reason for issuing the writ of execution; and
(C) The good reason must be stated in a special order.
2. In the case at bar, the ground relied upon by the trial court in allowing the immediate execution, as stated in its order of
March 20, 1989, is the filing of a bond by private respondents.
3. The rule is now settled that the mere filing of a bond by the successful party is not a good reason for ordering
execution pending appeal, as clarified in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
4. The exercise of the power to grant or deny immediate or advance execution is addressed to the sound discretion of the
5. However, the existence of good reasons is principally what confers such discretionary power. Absent any such good
reason, the special order of execution must be struck down for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The
Court has had the occasion to explain the importance of such requirement for good reason, thus:
a. If the judgment is executed and, on appeal, the same is reversed, although there are provisions for restitution,
oftentimes damages may arise which cannot be fully compensated. Accordingly, execution should be granted
only when these considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding urgency and the
provision contained in Rule 39, Section 2, requires a statement of these circumstances as a security for their
6. The courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired a final character.
Section 2 of Rule 39, which authorizes the discretionary execution of judgments, being an exception to the general
rule, must be restrictively construed. It would not be a sound rule to allow indiscriminately the execution of a money
judgment, even if there is a sufficient bond.
7. Moreover, we likewise further reproduce what we said in Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) vs.
Lantin, et al. 19 that awards for moral and exemplary damages cannot be the subject of execution pending appeal

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the assailed resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The writ of execution issued by the trial court pursuant to its order of March 20, 1989 is hereby ANNULLED.
The temporary restraining order heretofore issued against the said order and writ is hereby made permanent.