Case Digest (G.R. No. 76018)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. Hon. Benigno M. Puno, Industrial Enterprises, Inc., and Deputy Sheriff Arturo C. Flores, G.R. No. 76018, February 10, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) sought annulment by special civil action for certiorari of an order dated September 15, 1986 by respondent judge Hon. Benigno M. Puno that allowed execution pending appeal of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 150, decision in Civil Case No. 8109 in favor of private respondent Industrial Enterprises, Inc. (IEI); the writ of execution was issued September 22, 1986 and the respondent deputy sheriff attempted enforcement.The antecedent facts are: IEI received a coal operating contract from the Bureau of Energy Development (BED) on July 27, 1979 to explore two coal blocks in Giporlos, Eastern Samar. While exploring it applied for additional blocks and for conversion to development/production. In August 1983 IEI assigned its contract to Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC) with BED approval. On August 31, 1984 PNB caused extrajudicial foreclosure sale of MMIC’s properties, including mining equipment located at Giporlos.
IEI instituted Civil Case No. 8109 in the RTC, seeking rescission of the memorandum of agreement with MMIC, return of the coal blocks and equipment, nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, conversion of the contract, and damages against MMIC and PNB. The RTC rendered a summary judgment on April 23, 1986 ordering rescission, affirming the validity of IEI’s coal operating contract, directing return of the blocks and equipment, condemning MMIC to pay various damages and holding MMIC and PNB jointly and solidarily liable for certain obligations; the RTC declared the extrajudicial foreclosure sale null and void as against IEI.
The RTC then, by an order dated September 15, 1986, allowed execution of that judgment pending appeal and a writ of execution issued September 22, 1986 was to be enforced by respondent sheriff. PNB filed a notice of appeal on September 30, 1986 (the case was shown pending in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 12660). PNB filed the present Rule 65 special civil action in the Supreme Court to annul the order allowing execution; the Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 10, 1986, later made permanent.
The parties disputed whether the RTC had adequate “good reasons” under Rule 39, Sec. 2 (Execution pending appeal) to order execution before finality. The RTC relied on MMIC’s alleged insolvency, asserted risk of deterioration or loss of mining equipment and improvements, and broad public-interest considerations; IEI also argued that posting a bond should suffice to permit execution pending appeal.
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution pending appeal — i.e., were there “good reasons” justifying execution before finality under Rule 39, Sec. 2?
- Was the special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65) a proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s order allowing execution pending appeal?
- Does the mere filing or posting of a bond entitle the prevailing party to execution pending appeal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)