Title
Borja vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 95667
Decision Date
May 8, 1991
A 76-year-old petitioner sought execution of a favorable judgment pending appeal due to prolonged delays and advanced age; Supreme Court granted it, citing equity and justice.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95667)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • On October 11, 1979, petitioner Jose C. Borja, then 66 years old, filed a complaint against the private respondent Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines, Inc. for unpaid commissions amounting to ₱78,325.00 and damages.
    • Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner five years later, on June 13, 1984, and promulgated on November 28, 1986, when the petitioner was already 73 years old.
  • Motions for Execution Pending Appeal
    • On December 3, 1986, before the private respondent perfected its appeal, petitioner moved for execution of the judgment. This motion was denied by the trial court on July 28, 1988, on the ground that execution would affect the issues involved in the appeal.
    • A second motion for execution pending appeal was filed on March 14, 1989, while the records had not yet been elevated to the appellate court. This motion was also denied for the same reason.
    • A third motion for execution pending appeal was filed on April 18, 1990, directly with the Court of Appeals, but was again denied due to ongoing appellate proceedings including a re-taking of witness testimony.
    • The records of the case were only elevated to the Court of Appeals on September 14, 1990, by which time petitioner was 75 years old.
  • Petition for Certiorari
    • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 against the Court of Appeals’ resolutions dated August 24, 1990, and September 28, 1990, which denied his motion for execution pending appeal and reconsideration respectively.
    • Petitioner claimed these resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motions for execution pending appeal.
  • Whether execution pending appeal can be allowed under Rule 39, Section 2, of the Rules of Court considering the petitioner’s advanced age and the protracted delay in the appeal process.
  • Whether petitioner’s failure to raise his advanced age earlier precludes the Court from considering it as a factor in granting execution pending appeal.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.