Facts:

This case, titled "Tomasita Aquino vs. Hon. Pedro T. Santiago and Spouses Eufemia R. Roxas and Floro Roxas," was decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 28, 1988. The petitioner, Tomasita Aquino, was involved in a legal dispute concerning a complaint for collection of money filed on April 22, 1980, by the respondents, spouses Eufemia R. Roxas and Floro Roxas, in the Court of First Instance of Bataan, docketed as Civil Case No. 4627. The trial court granted a writ of preliminary attachment on April 30, 1980, based on a bond filed by the plaintiffs worth P20,000. This led to the sheriff seizing certain properties belonging to Aquino. In response, she filed an answer with a counterclaim asserting compensation against the claims of the spouses Roxas.

As the case progressed, a decision was issued by the trial court on December 17, 1980, in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Aquino to pay P53,280 plus attorney’s fees. An appeal was filed

...

Facts:

Initiation of the Case

• On April 22, 1980, spouses Eufemia Roxas and Floro Roxas initiated a complaint for the collection of a money sum against Tomasita Aquino in the Court of First Instance of Bataan (Civil Case No. 4627).
• The complaint included a prayer for preliminary attachment.

Preliminary Attachment and Trial Court Proceedings

• On April 30, 1980, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment as prayed for by the plaintiffs, backed by an attachment bond amounting to P20,000.00.
• Execution of the writ was undertaken by the sheriff, who levied and placed under custodio legis certain properties of the defendant.
• The defendant filed an answer with a counterclaim alleging compensation against the plaintiffs’ claim.

Pre-Trial and Decision on the Merits

• Pre-trial briefs were filed on July 11, 1980, and on July 22, 1980, the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendant opposed the motion.
• On December 17, 1980, the trial court rendered a decision favoring the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to pay P53,280.00 with legal interest from the filing date, plus attorney’s fees of P2,000.00 and other suit costs.

Appeal and Execution Pending Appeal Issues

• The defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 1981, attaching the required appeal bond and record on appeal, thereby appealing to the Supreme Court.
• On February 6, 1981, the plaintiffs moved for a writ of execution pending appeal; the defendant opposed this motion.
• The trial court granted the motion on February 16, 1981, thereby issuing an order for execution pending appeal.
• Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, the trial court issued an order disapproving the notice of appeal on the ground of “want of ground to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.”

Subsequent Developments and Petitions

• On March 11, 1981, after the filing of a petition for prohibition and mandamus by the defendant, the trial court set aside its previous disapproving order and approved the appeal.
• The defendant’s petition for prohibition and mandamus, along with a prayer for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction, was filed, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• On March 13, 1981, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from implementing the writ of execution pending appeal.
• Both parties eventually submitted their simultaneous memoranda after the respondents filed the required comments on July 13, 1981.

Governing Provisions and Case Records

• The applicable provision was Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which allows the court to order execution pending appeal, provided there is a showing of “good reasons” stated in a special order.
• Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court was also relevant in determining when an appeal is deemed perfected—namely, upon the filing of the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal.
• The case records were later remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the substantive appeal.

Issue:

Validity and Appropriateness of the Order of Execution Pending Appeal

• Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion by ordering execution pending appeal when the attachment bond was significantly less (P20,000.00) than the judgment amount (P53,280.00).
• Whether the trial court should have verified the actual market value or sufficiency of the properties attached instead of relying solely on the bond’s amount.

Judicial Authority Over the Notice of Appeal

• Whether the trial court overstepped its jurisdiction by disapproving the notice of appeal—which under the Rules of Court does not require trial court approval.
• The proper scope of the trial court’s authority regarding the evaluation of the record on appeal and appeal bond versus the notice of appeal itself.

Abuse of Discretion and the Purpose of the Appeal

• Whether the trial court’s order to execute pending appeal was motivated by an assumption that the appeal was merely for delay.
• Whether it was proper for the trial court to assess the merits of the defense (specifically, the claim of compensation) at this stage, which is generally the purview of the appellate court.

Remedy Sought by the Petitioner

• Whether the petition for prohibition and mandamus, praying for the issuance of a writ restraining the implementation of the execution order, is justified under the alleged grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction by the trial court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)