G.R. No. 95667 - Borja vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95667)

Procedural History and Key Dates

October 11, 1979: The petitioner filed a complaint for unpaid commissions amounting to P78,325.00 and damages.
June 13, 1984: RTC judgment in favor of the petitioner was rendered by Judge Tomas P. Maddela, Jr.
November 28, 1986: Judgment was promulgated.
December 3, 1986: Petitioner moved for execution of judgment before the respondent’s appeal was perfected.
July 28, 1988 and March 14, 1989: Trial court denied motions for execution pending appeal.
April 18, 1990: Court of Appeals likewise denied the motion for execution pending appeal.
September 14, 1990: Complete records of the case were elevated to the appellate court.
August 24, 1990 and September 28, 1990: Resolutions of the CA denying execution were issued.
November 23, 1990: Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Law

The 1987 Philippine Constitution applies as the decision was rendered in 1991. The controlling procedural rules are:

Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court: Execution of judgment is allowed only after the judgment becomes final and executory.
Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court: The court may, in its discretion and upon motion by the prevailing party and notice to the adverse party, order execution pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order.
Rule 131, Section 5: Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and that a judge acts within lawful jurisdiction.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal, despite the petitioner’s advanced age and undue delay in the appellate process.

Rationale and Legal Analysis

The Court recognized the extended duration of the litigation, spanning over a decade from the filing of the complaint. The handling of the appeal was particularly dilatory, evidenced by the six-year delay in elevating records from the RTC to the CA, and the ongoing procedural delays in the appellate stage.

The petitioner’s advanced age (76 years at the time of seeking execution pending appeal) was a compelling circumstance. Although the private respondent contended that the petitioner should have raised this concern earlier, the Court deemed this argument unpersuasive. The petitioner’s apprehension of not being able to enjoy the fruits of the judgment due to old age was valid and meritorious.

The Court acknowledged the private respondent’s contention regarding the validity of the RTC judgment issued by a supposedly retired judge; however, this issue could not be resolved in a certiorari proceeding absent a factual record. The presumption of regularity and jurisdiction applied under Rule 131, Section 5, must prevail until proven otherwise.

Citing precedent from De Leon v. Soriano (95 Phil. 806), the Court underscored that when the appeal is used merely to delay execution and the prevailing party is elderly or infirm, the balancing of interests may warrant execution pending appeal. It noted that the petitioner’s willingness to post a supersedeas bond provided further justification for allowing execution pending appeal, given the bond’s protective function.

The Court stressed that execution pending appeal is not a right but a judicial discretion exercised under Rule 39, Section 2, to be granted upon good reasons. The petitioner’s advanced age and the protracted litigation constitute such good reasons.

Finally, the Court clarified that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was proper to challenge the CA’s denial of execution pending appeal. The petitioner complied with procedural requirements, in

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95667)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Jose C. Borja, filed a complaint on October 11, 1979, against the Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines, Inc. for unpaid commissions amounting to P78,325.00 and damages.
At the time of filing, the petitioner was 66 years old.
After a protracted litigation, judgment was rendered in petitioner’s favor on June 13, 1984, by Judge Tomas P. Maddela, Jr., but was promulgated only five years later on November 28, 1986, by which time the petitioner had turned 73 years old.
Prior to the perfection of the respondent’s appeal, the petitioner filed his first motion for execution of judgment on December 3, 1986.
The trial court denied this motion on July 28, 1988, reasoning that granting execution would affect the issues involved in the pending appeal.
Two subsequent motions for execution pending appeal were also filed and denied — the second on March 14, 1989, and the third filed with the Court of Appeals on April 18, 1990.
The appellate court denied execution pending appeal, citing ongoing procedural requirements such as the retrial of witness testimony and incomplete records elevation, which was only completed on September 14, 1990.
At the time of the final record elevation to the appellate court, the petitioner was already 75 years old and later sought certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the Court of Appeals’ resolution denying execution pending appeal.

Issues Presented

Whether the orders of the Court of Appeals denying the petitioner’s motions for execution pending appeal were made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether execution of judgment pending appeal should be allowed based on the petitioner’s advanced age and the extensive delays in the execution of the judgment.
The proper interpretation and application of Rule 39, Section 2, of the Rules of Court regarding execution pending appeal.

Procedural Posture

The petitioner moved for execution of the Regional Trial Court’s judgment in three instances, each motion was denied by either the trial court or the Court of Appeals.
The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, questioning the validity of the orders denying execution pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals responded with resolutions dated August 24, 1990 (denial of motion for execution), and September 28, 1990 (denial of reconsideration), both challenged before the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Rules

Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court mandates that judgment may be executed only after it becomes final and executory, or after the expiration of the time to appeal if the appeal has been duly perfected.
Rule 39, Section 2 allows courts