Title
Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. vs. Abella-Aquino
Case
G.R. No. 213080
Decision Date
May 3, 2021
La Filipina sued Harbour Centre for breaching a 2004 MOA by failing to dredge, violating berthing rights, and overcharging. RTC ruled for La Filipina, ordering dredging and damages. Partial execution upheld for dredging but invalidated for uncertain charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213080)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Complaint filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on November 10, 2009; RTC Decision rendered October 11, 2011 ordering dredging to -11.5 m MLLW, compliance with MOA terms, and monetary awards; La Filipina filed motion for partial execution pending appeal on November 9, 2011; Harbour Centre filed notice of appeal November 2, 2011; RTC granted partial execution on February 28, 2012 and a writ of execution issued March 8, 2012; La Filipina contracted F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dredge (contract executed April 16, 2014; dredging completed October 22, 2014); Court of Appeals dismissed a petition as moot (March 3, 2014) and subsequently resolved the main appeal (Decision June 15, 2015); the Supreme Court resolved the present petition on May 3, 2021.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date is 1990 or later, the applicable Constitution is the 1987 Constitution. Governing procedural law: Rules of Court — in particular Rule 39 (Sections 2, 10, 11) on execution of judgments and execution pending appeal, and Rule 41 (Section 9) on perfection and effect of appeals. Relevant jurisprudence and doctrines cited in the decision include precedents on jurisdiction to entertain motions for execution pending appeal, the discretionary nature of such execution, and the enumerated considerations for what constitutes “good reasons” justifying discretionary execution pending appeal.

Issues Presented

(1) Whether the RTC’s grant of La Filipina’s motion for partial execution pending appeal and the issued writ of execution were valid; (2) Whether Harbour Centre committed forum shopping by raising challenges to the partial execution in the Court of Appeals while related matters were pending before the Supreme Court.

Governing Rule on Execution Pending Appeal and Jurisdictional Requirements

Rule 39, Section 2(a) permits a trial court, while it retains jurisdiction and is in possession of the original record or record on appeal, to order execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal on a prevailing party’s motion and upon showing “good reasons” in a special order after due hearing. The discretionary framework thus has two essential elements: a jurisdictional requirement (timeliness and possession of records) and the substantive requirement of showing good reasons justifying execution before finality. Jurisprudence confirms that trial courts retain jurisdiction to rule on such motions if the motion is filed within the appeal period and before transmittal of records.

What Constitutes “Good Reasons” and Limitations on Relevance of a Bond

“Good reasons” are equitable and exceptional; mere posting of a bond is not by itself a sufficient ground to permit execution pending appeal. The doctrine requires a combination of circumstances demonstrating urgency or superior circumstances (e.g., risk of rendering the judgment illusory, impending insolvency of the judgment debtor, deterioration of subjects of the litigation, risk that the prevailing party cannot enjoy the judgment) such that immediate execution is more equitable or necessary for public benefit. Past decisions cited illustrate both legitimate bases for discretion and instances where execution pending appeal was inappropriate despite certain admissions of liability or bond posting.

Application of Law to the Facts — Jurisdiction and the Dredging Order

Jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied: La Filipina’s motion for partial execution was filed within the appeal period while a motion for partial reconsideration was pending and prior to transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals, so the RTC retained jurisdiction and was in possession of the original record at the time it resolved the motion. On the merits, the Supreme Court found sufficient “good reasons” to permit immediate execution limited to the dredging order: (a) the obligation to dredge in accordance with the MOA is not contested as a contractual duty of Harbour Centre; (b) multiple hydrographic surveys, including one commissioned by Harbour Centre, showed areas shallower than -11.5 m MLLW; (c) evidence indicated actual and imminent risk to La Filipina’s foreign-chartered vessels (touching bottom or refusal to proceed) and attendant expenses such as lightening vessels and underwater surveys; and (d) urgency to prevent serious and potentially irreparable damage to vessels and cargo outweighed Harbour Centre’s interest, especially as pre-dredging surveys would guard against unnecessary dredging costs and joint surveys were feasible. The court therefore held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ordering immediate dredging under Rule 39, Section 10.

Application of Law to the Facts — Crediting and Release of Port and Cargo Handling Charges

The Supreme Court concluded that the RTC’s grant of immediate crediting of, and release by the Clerk of Court of, amounts paid under protest for port and cargo handling charges was invalid. These monetary amounts were still contested in the main appeal and therefore not yet fixed or definite; the willingness to post a bond did not amount to a “good reason” to justify their immediate release. Because the amounts remained subject to challenge and could affect the rights of the appellant if reversed on appeal, immediate release exceeded the permissible discretionary relief pending appeal.

Forum Shopping Analysis and Holding on That Issue

Forum shopping exists when multiple actions involve the same parties, rights or causes of action and reliefs sought such that judgments would have res judicata effect in the other pending cases. The Supreme Court found Harbour Centre did not engage in forum shopping. Harbour Centre’s appellate brief in the Court of Appeals addressed the manner of execution (i.e., whether the RTC applied Rule 39, Section 10 rather than Section 11) and did no

...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.

About Privacy Terms