Facts:

The case involves Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero as petitioners against Honorable Valerio V. Rovira, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Branch IV), and private respondents Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia, and Pacifico Lumauag. The events leading to this case began with Civil Case No. 5911 filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where the petitioners secured a judgment against Agos and Balajadia. The judgment ordered the defendants to resell a parcel of land to the petitioners for P3,000, execute the corresponding deed of sale, vacate the land, and reimburse the petitioners for certain amounts. The defendants appealed the decision, but their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court due to their failure to submit the printed record on appeal on time. Following the dismissal, the execution against the judgment debtors was returned unsatisfied. The petitioners filed a motion requesting that Pacifico Luma...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners, Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero, filed a petition for certiorari challenging the order of the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Branch IV) dated September 16, 1967.
• The challenged order denied petitioners’ motion seeking to compel private respondent Pacifico Lumauag to pay as surety on the supersedeas bond.
• The supersedeas bond had been posted to secure the stay of execution of a judgment favoring the petitioners in Civil Case No. 5911.

Procedural History and Context

• The original appeal by petitioners was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and its decision was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court after the record was remanded to the trial court.
• The execution against the judgment debtors was returned unsatisfied.
• Petitioners maintained that their motion was not a claim for damages for an alleged improper preliminary injunction but rather an application to enforce a supersedeas bond filed by Lumauag and co-sureties.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

• Respondent Judge’s Position
• Relied on Section 9 of Rule 58 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 57 and corresponding Supreme Court rulings.
• Asserted that, for a surety to be bound on a bond for damages, the application for damages must be filed before the entry of final judgment and after a hearing with proper notice to the surety.
• Petitioners’ Contentions
• Argued that the matter at hand was not a damage claim arising from a preliminary injunction issue but was an enforcement of the supersedeas bond pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 39.
• Cited Section 3 of Rule 39, which provides for the stay of execution upon the filing of a sufficient supersedeas bond, and the allowance for motion against the surety after remand by the appellate court.
• Additional Issue Raised
• Private respondent Lumauag contended that his principals (the judgment debtors) had amicably settled with petitioners—a matter not raised in the lower court and thus left for resolution at the trial level.
• Clarification Sought
• The exact monetary liability of the judgment debtors was in question as it did not necessarily equate to the full amount of the P10,000 supersedeas bond filed.

Judgment Order’s Provisions

• The judgment in issue ordered:
• The resale of a parcel of land to the petitioners for P3,000.00.
• Execution of a deed of sale (by the defendants or by the court’s clerk if not executed by the defendants).
• Immediate vacation and delivery of possession of the land.
• Reimbursement for produce received by the defendants totalling P6,123.30 from January 1961 to October 27, 1964.
• Payment of monthly damages of P278.33 from November 1, 1964 until possession was delivered.
• Payment of attorney’s fees (P1,000.00) and additional costs.

Issue:

Appropriateness of the Petition

• Whether petitioners’ motion to enforce the supersedeas bond filed by private respondent Lumauag is procedurally and substantively proper after the dismissal of their appeal and remand of the record to the trial court.

Correct Applicable Rules

• Whether the lower court erred in relying on Section 9 of Rule 58 (in connection with Section 20 of Rule 57) instead of applying Section 3 of Rule 39 which specifically governs stays of execution secured by a supersedeas bond.

Resolution of Factual Disputes

• Whether the issue of an amicable settlement between the judgment debtors and petitioners—raised by Lumauag in his answer but not before the lower court—should impede the enforcement of the supersedeas bond at this juncture.

Determination of Liability Amount

• Whether clarity is needed regarding the actual amount against which the supersedeas bond should be enforced, as opposed to automatically assuming it is the full P10,000 bond posted.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)