Title
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Genovea
Case
G.R. No. L-60687
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1982
BBI sued PLDT for unpaid janitorial services; trial court ruled for BBI, but SC nullified execution pending appeal, citing abuse of discretion, and reopened case for PLDT's evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-60687)

Background Facts

BBI had been providing janitorial maintenance and sanitation services to PLDT for over a decade. In 1977, due to rising prices and increased labor costs mandated by the Labor Code and various Presidential Decrees, BBI requested a readjustment of its monthly billing rates. PLDT agreed to a lower amount of P550.00 per month per janitor on September 18, 1978. Subsequently, BBI claimed that PLDT had only paid a portion of the amount due, leading to a balance of P212,624.78. In February 1981, BBI filed a complaint against PLDT for the outstanding balance along with additional claims.

Judicial Proceedings

Commencing with a pre-trial on October 15, 1981, the trial court allowed BBI to present its documentary evidence, leading to the scheduling of subsequent hearings. PLDT’s attempts to postpone the trial due to the sudden illness of its witness were rejected. Consequently, on April 27, 1982, the court issued a favorable decision for BBI, ordering PLDT to pay the total amount claimed, including attorney’s fees and costs.

PLDT's Motion for Reconsideration

Following the ruling, PLDT filed a motion for a new trial and/or reconsideration on May 27, 1982, claiming it was not liable for the amounts asserted and was denied the opportunity to present its evidence. Concurrently, BBI filed a motion for immediate execution based on PLDT’s alleged dilatory conduct.

Issuance of Execution Pending Appeal

On June 7, 1982, the respondent judge denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration and granted BBI’s motion for immediate execution. The judge justified this on the basis of perceived delays by PLDT in the litigation process and alleged admissions of liability. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued on June 8, 1982. PLDT then filed a petition for certiorari, contesting the validity of the orders granting immediate execution.

Legal Analysis of Execution Pending Appeal

The court found that the trial judge had erred in issuing the writ of execution pending appeal, as there were no "good reasons" that warranted such a decision. The mere existence of delays or suspicions of a dilatory appeal did not suffice to justify the issuance of execution pending appeal. The court stressed that the merits of PLDT's appeal had not yet been decided, and the assumption of liability based solely on procedural timelines lacked proper legal foundation.

Approval of Bill of Costs

Additionally, the approval of BBI’s bill of costs by the trial judge was deemed as having been made with grave abuse of discretion. The ruling highlighted that since PLDT had appealed, the judgment was not yet final

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.