Title
Aquino vs. Santiago
Case
G.R. No. 56362
Decision Date
May 28, 1988
Spouses sued for debt collection; trial court granted execution pending appeal, disapproved notice of appeal. SC reversed, citing grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 56362)

Procedural History

The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on April 30, 1980, allowing a levy on certain properties of Aquino. Following the defendant's filing of an answer and counterclaim, the trial court rendered a decision on December 17, 1980, ordering Aquino to pay the Roxas spouses a total of P53,280, alongside attorney's fees and costs. On January 26, 1981, Aquino filed a notice of appeal along with her appeal bond and record on appeal.

Motion for Execution Pending Appeal

Subsequent to the appeal filing, the Roxas spouses sought a writ of execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted on February 16, 1981. Aquino opposed this motion, citing her compensation defense against the Roxas claim and arguing that the properties under custodia legis sufficiently protected the Roxas spouses' interests. The trial court, however, issued an order on February 25, 1981, disapproving Aquino’s notice of appeal, a decision that was objected to by Aquino via a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

Legal Grounds for Appeal and Execution

The legal framework governing execution pending appeal is articulated in Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows for such execution upon the prevailing party’s motion, supported by valid reasons. However, the trial court's authority to approve a notice of appeal is not within its jurisdiction; it only concerns the record on appeal and the appeal bond. The Supreme Court noted the significance of ensuring merit in the execution order by assessing potential insolvency risks or the likelihood of undue delay by the appealing party when granting execution.

Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court identified a grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in disregarding Aquino's claims regarding the sufficiency of her properties, instead relying on the bond amount to dismiss her notice of appeal. The Court emphasized that it is inappropriate for a trial judge to ascertain the merits of an appeal they previously decided, suggesting

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.