Rebadulia v. Benitez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners acted as bondsmen, providing bail in the aggregate amount of P40,000.00 for the provisional liberty of accused individuals in Criminal Case No. 2909, who were charged with robbery in band. The accused failed to appear for their trial on August 22, 1958, leading to the forfeiture of the bail bonds. 2. Procedural History: Following the forfeiture of the bonds, the respondent Judge ordered the bondsmen (petitioners) to produce the accused within 30 days and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them. As the court was unsatisfied with their explanation for the accused's non-appearance, a judgment was rendered against the petitioners on March 20, 1959, ordering immediate execution. The petitioners filed a motion to set aside this judgment and a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, both of which were initially denied. However, upon reconsideration and without objection from the fiscal, the lower court eventually gave due course to the appeal, which is now pending as G.R. No. L-15584. Despite the pending appeal, a writ of execution was issued, leading to a notice of public auction sale of the properties posted as bail. 3. The Petition: This special civil action for prohibition was filed by the petitioners to enjoin the respondent Judge and provincial sheriffs from proceeding with the execution sale of their properties. They contend that the respondents acted in excess of their authority and jurisdiction, particularly given the pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioners seek to halt the execution sale until their appeal is finally resolved.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale on execution of petitioners' properties, given as bail, can proceed when an appeal from the judgment on the bonds has been perfected and is currently pending decision before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition for prohibition is granted, and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent, subject to whatever may be the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-15584. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the sale on execution of petitioners' properties, given as bail, can proceed when an appeal from the judgment on the bonds has been perfected and is currently pending decision before the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court ruled that the execution sale cannot proceed. The Court first cited Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides that execution may issue in the discretion of the court before the expiration of the time to appeal upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. However, the Court then emphasized a more critical procedural principle: that after an appeal is perfected, or after the record on appeal is approved, the trial court loses jurisdiction to issue execution. This fundamental rule was buttressed by reference to established jurisprudence, namely Vda. de Sy Quia vs. Concepcion and Palma, 60 Phil. 186, and Unero et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-6522, August 25, 1954. Although the writ of execution in the instant case was initially issued before the appeal was perfected—apparently on the theory that the judgment was final and unappealable—the lower court later reconsidered its stance and finally allowed the petitioners' appeal. This appeal is now pending before the Supreme Court as G.R. No. L-15584. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the interest of justice would be better served by holding the sale on execution of petitioners' properties in abeyance until the appeal is finally resolved. This ensures that the appellate court's jurisdiction over the pending case is respected and prevents a premature enforcement that could render the appeal nugatory.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition and made the preliminary injunction permanent, holding that the sale on execution of properties given as bail should be held in abeyance until the appeal filed by the petitioners is finally disposed of, considering that the lower court had reconsidered its stand and allowed the appeal.