Lao v. Mencias
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a complaint for rescission of contract and damages with attachment filed by Lino Victorino, Leticia Pike, Francisca Vda. de Pike, Norma Pike, Agatona Natividad, and Felisa Lakambakal against Honoria Lao and Primitivo Lao. The Lao spouses were the defendants in this action. Procedural History: The complaint was filed on May 4, 1963, and an answer was filed on August 10, 1963. A decision was rendered by the respondent Judge on March 5, 1964. The petitioners (defendants) filed a motion to set aside the decision and for a new trial on March 9, 1964. Subsequently, on July 21, 1964, the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. This motion was set for hearing on August 8, 1964, and the petitioners did not oppose it. The respondent Judge granted the motion for execution pending appeal. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the writ of execution pending appeal. Their primary contention was that the motion for execution was not sworn to and lacked supporting affidavits, constituting a grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge. They also argued that no evidence was presented to justify the issuance of the writ and that it would disturb the status quo and cause irreparable damage. The Supreme Court granted due course to the petition and issued a preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of execution pending appeal despite the motion for execution not being under oath and lacking supporting affidavits. Whether the motion for execution pending appeal sufficiently stated good and special reasons for its issuance.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied, and the preliminary injunction is dissolved. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge in issuing the writ of execution pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the requirements for a writ of execution pending appeal: The Court held that the respondent Court did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari is based on the premise that the motion for execution was unverified and lacked supporting affidavits. However, the Court clarified that Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not require a motion for a writ of execution pending appeal to be under oath or supported by an affidavit. The rule requires a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, good reasons for issuing execution, and that these good reasons be stated in a special order. The Court found that all these requisites were present in the case. The motion for execution was filed by the prevailing party (respondents) with notice to the adverse party (petitioners), and the reasons for execution were stated in the motion itself. On the sufficiency of the reasons for execution: The Court found that the motion for execution sufficiently stated good and special reasons. The motion detailed that the decision was rendered, the motion to set aside was denied, the property in question was encumbered and obligations were unsettled, petitioners were exhausting monthly installments for personal use without constructing required improvements, petitioners appeared to have no other assets to satisfy the judgment, and that delaying execution would allow petitioners to exhaust remaining assets, depriving respondents of their rightful collection. These circumstances, as alleged in the motion, constituted good and special reasons for the issuance of execution pending appeal, as contemplated by Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court also noted that petitioners did not oppose the motion for execution nor deny the truthfulness of the facts alleged therein.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution pending appeal may be issued upon a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, provided there are good reasons for such issuance, which must be stated in a special order, and the Rules of Court do not require such a motion to be under oath or supported by an affidavit.