Title
Apachecha vs. Rovira
Case
G.R. No. L-28454
Decision Date
May 18, 1978
Petitioners sought to enforce a supersedeas bond after appeal dismissal; judge denied motion, misapplying rules. SC ruled in favor, clarifying Rule 39 governs supersedeas bonds, remanding for liability determination.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28454)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero.
    • Respondents: Honorable Valerio V. Rovira (Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo), Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia, and Pacifico Lumauag.
  2. Case Background:

    • Petitioners secured a judgment against Eustaquio Agos and Maria Balajadia in Civil Case No. 5911.
    • The judgment ordered Agos and Balajadia to resell a parcel of land to petitioners for P3,000, reimburse P6,123.30 for produce received, pay monthly damages of P278.33, and cover attorney’s fees and costs.
  3. Supersedeas Bond:

    • To stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal, Agos and Balajadia, with Pacifico Lumauag as surety, filed a supersedeas bond.
    • The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court due to the appellants' failure to submit the printed record on time.
  4. Execution Attempts:

    • After the case was remanded to the trial court, execution against Agos and Balajadia was returned unsatisfied.
    • Petitioners filed a motion to enforce the supersedeas bond against Lumauag, which was denied by the respondent judge.
  5. Respondent Judge’s Ruling:

    • The judge denied the motion, citing Section 9 of Rule 58 and Section 20 of Rule 57, which require that claims for damages against a surety must be filed before final judgment and with notice to the surety.
  6. Petitioners’ Argument:

    • Petitioners argued that their motion was governed by Section 3 of Rule 39, which allows proceeding against a supersedeas bond after the case is remanded to the trial court.

Issue:

  1. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to enforce the supersedeas bond against Pacifico Lumauag.
  2. Whether the applicable rule is Section 3 of Rule 39 (governing supersedeas bonds) or Section 9 of Rule 58 and Section 20 of Rule 57 (governing damages in preliminary injunction cases).
  3. Whether the exact amount of liability under the supersedeas bond must be clarified before execution against Lumauag.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The Court held that:

  1. The respondent judge erred in applying the rules governing damages in preliminary injunction cases (Rule 58 and Rule 57) instead of the rule governing supersedeas bonds (Rule 39).
  2. Petitioners’ motion to enforce the supersedeas bond was proper, as the appeal had been dismissed and the case remanded to the trial court.
  3. The exact amount of liability under the supersedeas bond must be clarified before execution against Lumauag.
  4. The respondent judge was directed to act on petitioners’ motion in accordance with the Court’s opinion.

Ratio:

  1. Applicability of Rule 39:

    • The case involves a supersedeas bond filed to stay the execution of a judgment pending appeal, governed by Section 3 of Rule 39. This rule allows proceeding against the bond after the case is remanded to the trial court.
  2. Distinction from Preliminary Injunction Cases:

    • The rules cited by the respondent judge (Rule 58 and Rule 57) apply to claims for damages in preliminary injunction cases, which are not applicable here.
  3. Proper Procedure for Supersedeas Bonds:

    • A motion to enforce a supersedeas bond may be filed after the case is remanded to the trial court, with notice to the surety.
  4. Clarification of Liability:

    • The exact amount of liability under the supersedeas bond must be determined before execution against the surety, as the bond may not cover the full amount of the judgment.
  5. Grave Abuse of Discretion:

    • The respondent judge’s denial of the motion constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it was based on an incorrect application of the rules.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.