Case Summary (G.R. No. 131109)
Procedural History — trial judgment and appeal
The trial court rendered judgment on February 14, 1996 in favor of the Torralbas, awarding ISM: P4,000,000 moral damages; P1,000,000 exemplary damages; P2,000,000 actual damages; P300,000 attorney’s fees; and costs. Individual defendants were dismissed. ISM appealed to the Court of Appeals. While appeal was pending, the Torralbas moved in the trial court for execution pending appeal on grounds that ISM’s appeal was merely dilatory and in light of the posting of a bond. ISM opposed.
Trial court orders and execution proceedings
On June 19, 1996 the trial court granted execution pending appeal conditioned on the posting of a P5,000,000 bond by the Torralbas. Garnishment of ISM’s Citibank deposits followed: Deputy Sheriff Doroni served notice of garnishment and Citibank advised that ISM’s deposits totaling P5,500,000 were on “hold/pledge.” ISM offered a supersedeas bond (P5,600,000) but the trial court rejected or did not accept it as preventing execution. Orders were issued directing Citibank to release funds to the deputy sheriff and directing encashment of a Citibank manager’s check representing the garnished amount; execution was briefly suspended pending resolution of motions but ultimately the trial court denied ISM’s reconsideration and authorized turnover of garnished funds to the plaintiffs.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and issues of forum-shopping and remedy adequacy
ISM then filed a certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals seeking annulment of the trial court’s orders for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. The Torralbas raised procedural defenses, alleging forum-shopping because ISM’s appeal to the Court of Appeals and its certiorari petition sought relief relating to the same subject. The Supreme Court noted the distinction between a regular appeal on the merits and a special civil action challenging execution pending appeal; where the causes of action and reliefs differ, forum-shopping is not present. The Court of Appeals denied ISM’s certiorari petition; ISM sought relief in the Supreme Court.
Legal standard for execution pending appeal (Section 2, Rule 39)
Section 2, Rule 39 provides that, on motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the trial court may, in its discretion, order execution to issue even before expiration of the time to appeal, but only upon “good reasons” to be stated in a special order. The elements are: (a) a motion by the prevailing party with notice; (b) presence of good reasons justifying execution; and (c) the good reasons must be stated in a special order. Jurisprudence recognizes that certiorari is an available remedy where execution pending appeal is not founded on good reasons or where the ordinary remedy (appeal or supersedeas bond) is inadequate.
Availability of certiorari and adequacy of ordinary remedies
The Court reiterated settled authority that certiorari lies against an order granting execution pending appeal when such execution lacks good reasons. Supreme Court precedents (cited Valencia and Jaca) permit extraordinary relief when appeal or posting of a bond is not an adequate or equally beneficial remedy to prevent the failure of justice. The mere availability of appeal does not automatically preclude certiorari where execution pending appeal would be premature or unwarranted.
Analysis of trial court’s stated “good reasons” — dilatory appeal and “admission of fault”
The trial court (and the Court of Appeals) treated two contentions as constituting “good reasons”: (1) the appeal was taken for purpose of delay (dilatory); and (2) the filing of a bond. The trial court’s finding that the appeal was dilatory was anchored principally on a colloquy where ISM’s swimming coach acknowledged reading a school article introducing a safety project called “Code Red,” which stated that such measures were introduced after the tragic death of Ericson Torralba. The Supreme Court held that this exchange — the coach’s admission that he read a school paper article — cannot be equated with a virtual admission of liability by ISM. The article was not an official school statement and the coach’s acknowledgment of having read it does not establish the school’s admission of fault. Consequently, the trial court’s characterization of the appeal as dilatory rested on insufficient factual and legal basis.
Analysis of filing a bond as a “good reason”
The Supreme Court reiterated precedent (Roxas) that the mere filing or availability of a bond cannot, by itself, constitute a “good reason” for ordering immediate execution pending appeal. Treating bond-posting alone as sufficient would make execution pending appeal the routine rather than the exceptional rule the statute contemplates. The Court emphasized
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131109)
Case Caption, Citation and Panel
- Full caption as provided: International School, Inc. (Manila), petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, spouses Alex and Ophelia Torralba, respondents.
- Reported at 368 Phil. 791; G.R. No. 131109; Decision dated June 29, 1999.
- Decision penned by Justice Gonzaga‑Reyes. Per curiam participation by Justices Lourdes K. Tayao‑Jaguros, Romeo A. Brawner and Hilarion L. Aquino noted in the Court of Appeals reference; concurrence by Justices Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima in final disposition; Justice Romero on leave.
Parties and Nature of the Action
- Petitioners: International School (Manila), Inc. (ISM).
- Private respondents: Spouses Alex and Ophelia Torralba (plaintiffs in the main action).
- Collateral respondent: Honorable Court of Appeals (respondent in the certiorari petition).
- Underlying action: Civil Case No. Q‑91‑10653 in the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 77) entitled "Spouses Alex and Ophelia Torralba v. International School, Inc. (Manila), Dr. Rodney C. Hermes, Noli Reloj and Danilo de Jesus," a Complaint for Damages arising from the death of plaintiffs' only son, Ericson Torralba, while in the custody of ISM and its officers.
Trial Court (RTC) Dispositive Judgment
- Decision rendered February 14, 1996 (Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 77; presided by Judge Ignacio L. Salvador).
- RTC held ISM liable and awarded the following sums to plaintiffs:
- P4,000,000.00 as moral damages;
- P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- P2,000,000.00 as actual damages;
- P300,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- Costs of suit.
- Complaint against individual defendants dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
- Counterclaim dismissed for lack of merit.
Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal
- ISM appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
- During pendency of appeal, plaintiffs (spouses Torralba) filed a motion for execution pending appeal in RTC on the grounds that (a) ISM’s appeal was merely dilatory; and (b) the filing of a bond was another good reason for execution pending appeal.
- ISM opposed the motion for execution pending appeal.
Orders and Events in the Lower Court Relating to Execution
- RTC order dated June 19, 1996 granted execution pending appeal, conditioned upon posting by the spouses of a bond in the amount of P5,000,000.00.
- Writ of Execution Pending Appeal issued July 17, 1996.
- Deputy Sheriff Angel L. Doroni, by ex parte motion (dated July 25, 1996), reported service of a Notice of Garnishment on Citibank N.A. (Global Consumer Banking, Citibank) on July 18, 1996, and receipt on July 24, 1996 of Citibank’s letter that ISM’s bank deposits amounting to P5,500,000.00 were on "hold/pledge."
- ISM filed, on July 23, 1996, a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for approval of a supersedeas bond in the amount of P5,600,000.00.
- RTC order dated July 25, 1996 directed Citibank to release to Deputy Sheriff Doroni in cash or check the amount of P5,500,000.00, subject of the Notice of Garnishment dated July 25, 1996.
- Spouses Torralba filed an urgent ex parte motion (July 26, 1996) to encash and receive the proceeds of the Citibank Manager’s Check representing the amount garnished.
- ISM filed an urgent motion to stop delivery of garnished funds on July 29, 1996.
- RTC issued an order on August 2, 1996 suspending the execution process pending resolution of ISM’s motion for reconsideration (noting no opposition filed in relation to suspension).
- Spouses Torralba opposed ISM’s motion for reconsideration.
- RTC order dated August 27, 1996 denied ISM’s motion for reconsideration and authorized Deputy Sheriff Doroni to encash the Citibank Manager’s Check for P5,500,000.00 and to turn over proceeds, less legal fees and charges if any, to plaintiffs or their representative.
- After denial, ISM sought to withdraw its supersedeas bond; when attempts to set aside execution order and offer of supersedeas bond were rejected, ISM filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Proceedings and Rulings in the Court of Appeals
- ISM’s petition for certiorari to annul the RTC orders (June 19, 1996 and August 27, 1996) was denied by the Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals decision (referred to in the rollo and earlier paragraphs as dated June 23, 1997) dismissed ISM’s petition for lack of merit and later, in a resolution dated October 14, 1997, denied ISM’s motion for reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals accepted as "good reasons" for execution pending appeal: (a) that ISM’s appeal appeared dilatory because ISM adopted the "Code Red" project only after the death of Ericson Torralba (taken as virtual admission of fault); and (b) that delay had affected the plaintiffs financially.
Question Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal of its decision (i.e., whether the writ of execution pending appeal was properly ordered under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).
Procedural Objections Raised by Private Respondents
- Private respondents contended in their memorandum that ISM engaged in forum‑shopping by filing a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking relief similar to that prayed for in its pending appeal at the Court of Appeals.
- Private respondents further contended that certiorari was an improper remedy because ISM had adequate remedies — namely appeal and posting of a supersedeas bond.