Facts:
Emerita Garon (“Garon”) filed an action for sum of money against Project Movers Realty and Development Corporation (“Project Movers”) and Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. (“Stronghold Insurance”). The RTC granted Garon’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Garon and motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court granted Garon’s motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court ordered Garon to post a bond of ₱20 million to answer for any damage that Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance may sustain by reason of the execution pending appeal. The RTC Branch Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution pending appeal.
Stronghold Insurance filed a notice of appeal to the CA. CA enjoined the trial court, Jamora and Garon from enforcing the Execution Order. However, it turned out that notices of garnishment had been served before the Court of Appeals issued the temporary restraining order (TRO).
Hence, the petition before the SC. Garon anchors the motion for execution pending appeal on the following grounds: (a) any appeal which Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance may take from the summary judgment would be patently dilatory; (b) the ill health of Garon’s spouse and the spouses’ urgent need for the funds owed to them by Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance constitute good reasons for execution pending appeal; and (c) Garon is ready and willing to post a bond to answer for any damage Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance may suffer should the trial court’s decision be reversed on appeal.
Issue:
Whether there are good reasons to justify execution pending appeal.
Held:
No. Execution pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, being more of the exception rather than the rule. This rule is strictly construed against the movant because courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired finality. Such execution affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal.
The requisites for the grant of an execution of a judgment pending appeal are the following:
(a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
(b) there must be good reasons for execution pending appeal;
(c) the good reasons must be stated in the special order.
As a discretionary execution, execution pending appeal is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal. Good reasons, special, important, pressing reasons must exist to justify execution pending appeal; otherwise, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, it may well become a tool of oppression and inequality. Good reasons consist of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer should the appealed judgment be reversed later.
SC agree with Stronghold Insurance that Garon failed to present good reasons to justify execution pending appeal. The posting of a bond, standing alone and absent the good reasons required under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules, is not enough to allow execution pending appeal. The mere filing of a bond by a successful party is not a good reason to justify execution pending appeal as a combination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution. The bond is only an additional factor for the protection of the defendant’s creditor.
The exercise of the power to grant or deny a motion for execution pending appeal is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, the existence of good reasons is indispensable to the grant of execution pending appeal. Here, Garon failed to advance good reasons that would justify the execution pending appeal.
adrianantazo.com 