Facts:

• Magdaleno M. Peña filed a complaint for recovery of agent's compensation, expenses, damages, and attorney's fees against Urban Bank, Inc. and its board of directors and officers, including Eric L. Lee.
• On May 28, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Bago City rendered judgment in favor of Peña, ordering the defendants to pay him various amounts.
• Peña moved for execution pending appeal, while Lee and his co-defendants filed a notice of appeal and opposition to the motion.
• The trial court granted the motion for execution pending appeal, and a writ of execution was issued.
• Lee and his co-defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of the execution.
• The Court of Appeals later reversed its decision and denied the petition.
• Lee and his co-defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.
• The Court of Appeals also required Peña to post an indemnity bond.
• Peña filed an action to compel EQL Properties, Inc. to transfer Lee's shares in his name.
• Lee filed a petition for indirect contempt against Peña and the sheriff for alleged disobedience to the Court of Appeals' orders.
• Lee also filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari to annul the proceedings in the trial court and enjoin further implementation of the execution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled that there was no forum-shopping because the Court had already denied Peña's motion to dismiss the previous petition.
• The Court held that the January 12, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition for certiorari and annulled the execution pending appeal, was effectively vacated by the Amended Decision.
• Therefore, there was no injunction or order to desist from further execution.
• The Court found that there was no willful attempt by the trial court to delay the transmittal of the records to the appellate court.
• The Court further held that the execution pending appeal was justified due to the impendi...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court determined that there was no forum-shopping because the previous petition had already been denied by the Court.
• The Court found that the Amended Decision effectively vacated the previous decision of the Court of Appeals, therefore there was no injunction or order to stop the execution.
• The Court concluded that there was no willful attempt by the trial court to delay the transmittal of the records, thus rejecting Lee's argume...continue reading