Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28454)

Case Background

This decision pertains to a petition for certiorari filed by Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero against Judge Valerio V. Rovira and private respondents Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia, and Pacifico Lumauag regarding Civil Case No. 5911 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.

• Petitioners: Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero
• Respondents: Hon. Valerio V. Rovira, Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia, Pacifico Lumauag
• Date of Decision: May 18, 1978

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue addressed is whether the denial of the petitioners' motion to compel Lumauag to pay as surety on a supersedeas bond constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

• Supersedeas Bond: A bond filed to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal.

Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' arguments and granted the petition.

Legal Principles Involved

1. Supersedeas Bond Requirements:

   • A supersedeas bond must be approved by the court to stay execution pending appeal.
   • The bond should be conditioned upon the performance of the judgment if affirmed.

2. Relevant Legal Provisions:

   • Section 3 of Rule 39: Governs the stay of execution, allowing for a bond to be enforced post-remand from the appellate court.
   • Section 9 of Rule 58 & Section 20 of Rule 57: Discuss requirements and procedures for claims involving damages due to preliminary injunctions.

• Key Definitions:
  • Surety: A party that guarantees the fulfillment of an obligation.
  • Judgment Debtors: Parties required to fulfill the judgment as ordered by the court.

Procedural Aspects

• The petitioners sought relief under the specific provisions of Rule 39 rather than Rule 58, which the respondent judge misapplied.

• The petitioners' motion was filed appropriately after the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal and remand of the case.

• Important Procedures:

  • Notice must be given to the surety when proceeding against the bond.
  • The motion to enforce the bond can be filed once the case is remanded.

Judgment Details

The original judgment required the defendants (Agos and Balajadia) to:

• Resell land to the plaintiffs for P3,000.

• Execute a deed of sale and vacate the land.

• Reimburse the plaintiffs for profits lost from the land.

• Financial Obligations:

  • Monthly damages of P278.33 starting from November 1, 1964, until possession is delivered.
  • Attorney’s fees of P1,000, plus costs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the respondent judge and directed the trial court to act on the petitioners’ motion. The exact liabilities of the judgment debtors related to the bond filed by Lumauag require clarification before execution can occur.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between claims for damages due to injunctions and motions related to supersedeas bonds.
• The correct legal framework w

...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28454)

Case Background

• Petitioners Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero filed a petition for certiorari against Honorable Valerio V. Rovira, the judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and private respondents Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia, and Pacifico Lumauag.
• The petition challenges an order issued by the respondent judge on September 16, 1967, in Civil Case No. 5911, which denied the petitioners' motion requiring Lumauag to pay as surety on a supersedeas bond.
• The motion aimed to enforce the execution of a judgment that favored the petitioners against Agos and Balajadia.

Procedural History

• The judgment in Civil Case No. 5911 was initially rendered in favor of the petitioners, obligating the defendants to resell a specified land for ₱3,000.00, vacate the land, and reimburse the petitioners for certain amounts.
• The appeal taken by Agos and Balajadia was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court due to their failure to submit a printed record on appeal on time.
• The record was remanded to the trial court, where the execution against the judgment debtors was returned unsatisfied.

Legal Issues

• The core issue revolves around the respondent judge’s interpretation of the rules regarding supersedeas bonds and the enforcement of judgment.
• Lumauag contended that under Section 9 of R

...continue reading