G.R. No. 143933 - Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. vs. Malayan Insurance Company Inc.

The case originates from Civil Case No. 63445 filed before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 163, where Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation (petitioner) sought recovery under a Marine Cargo Policy and its endorsement for a sum of P2,698,637.00, representing the insured value of 377.168 metric tons of Prime Newly Hot Rolled Steel Billets, including attorney’s fees and costs.
Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (respondent) answered the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and improper venue; petitioner opposed the motion, leading to a series of pleadings and motions including petitioner's amended complaint and various orders regarding motions to dismiss and to extend time for respondent’s answer.

The respondent court, presided over by Hon. Aurelio Trampe, allowed several motions including the admitting of petitioner's amended complaint and the granting of an extension for respondent to file an answer.
Despite the granted extension, petitioner argued that respondent’s time to file its answer had already expired, seeking a declaration of default. The RTC declared respondent in default in its November 5, 1993 order, followed by subsequent procedural actions such as the filing of an ex parte evidence motion by petitioner and an eventual submission of respondent’s answer on November 10, 1993.

Respondent, after the issuance of judgment for petitioner on December 10, 1993, filed a notice of appeal against the judgment on January 10, 1994, while petitioner moved for execution of the judgment pending appeal on January 6, 1994.
The RTC, through its February 4, 1994 order, authorized execution pending appeal, with a supersedeas bond submitted and a notice of garnishment served on respondent’s bank on February 22, 1994.
Respondent subsequently filed the instant petition for certiorari on February 23, 1994, challenging the RTC’s order and the execution pending appeal, which eventually led to the appellate court’s review.

Petitioner failed to comply with the stringent requirements for a Writ of Execution pending appeal.
No tangible prejudice or damage would occur to petitioner given respondent’s capacity to meet its obligations.
Filing a bond alone did not warrant execution pending appeal.

The CA also ruled on the respondent’s declaration of default, noting that the timeline for filing an answer had been improperly calculated and that respondent should have been afforded the opportunity to answer.
Additionally, the CA clarified that procedural lapses regarding the submission of material dates and an affidavit of non-forum shopping were considered waived, as objections were not timely raised.

Whether the RTC acted properly in allowing execution pending appeal on the ground of the alleged dilatory or frivolous nature of respondent’s appeal, despite the filing of a supersedeas bond.
Whether the trial court was correct in asserting that dilatory tactics justified execution, given that only the appellate court may rule on the dilatoriness of an appeal.

Whether the CA erred in holding that the RTC improperly declared respondent in default, especially since the issue was previously resolved in another appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 45547) and was not raised in the present petition.
The timing of the receipt of the default order and whether respondent’s subsequent actions should have affected the default declaration.

Whether the CA was right in not dismissing the petition for failure to include a verified statement of material dates and an affidavit of non-forum shopping.
Whether these omissions, being procedural lapses, could be waived in light of the overall merits of the case.