Once v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City Court of Iloilo City ordered Bienvenido Once to vacate an apartment owned by Juanito Peña and pay monthly rentals of P290 plus P1,000 as attorney's fees. Once alleged he had occupied the apartment since 1966, that he was singled out for ejectment, that the commissioner's report on the building's condition was not set for hearing, and that he should be given preference to reoccupy after repairs. The City Court denied his motion for reconsideration. Procedural History: Once appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and deposited rentals for April, May, June, July, and August 1976. Peña moved for immediate execution, citing Once's failure to file a supersedeas bond and the apartment's alleged untenantable condition. Once opposed, arguing he had deposited current rentals and the building was stable. The Executive Judge granted the motion for execution, stating Once had not filed a supersedeas bond. Once moved for reconsideration, citing jurisprudence that a supersedeas bond is not necessary if rentals are deposited. The CFI denied the motion and issued a writ of execution. Once moved to suspend execution, offering to file a bond and invoking Presidential Decree No. 20. This motion was also denied. The Petition: Once filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court to set aside the CFI's order and writ of execution. A temporary restraining order was issued, but Once had already vacated the premises.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in ordering the execution of the city court's judgment pending appeal. Whether a supersedeas bond was necessary for the execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the lower court's orders of August 9 and September 14, 1976, and ordered costs against respondent Peña. The Court found that the lower court committed a patent error in ordering execution based solely on the failure to file a supersedeas bond, as no such bond was necessary given that no back rentals were adjudged and the current rentals had been timely deposited.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the lower court erred in ordering the execution of the city court's judgment pending appeal: The lower court committed a patent error in ordering the execution of the city court's judgment pending appeal solely on the ground that Bienvenido Once failed to file a supersedeas bond. Such a bond is not a prerequisite for staying execution when the tenant has complied with the alternative requirement of depositing the current rentals due. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure the lessor against damages that may accrue during the appeal, but this is rendered unnecessary when the tenant consistently pays the monthly rentals as they fall due. The timely deposits made by Once for the months of April, May, June, July, and August 1976 effectively stayed the execution of the judgment pending appeal, as provided by law and jurisprudence. On whether a supersedeas bond was necessary for the execution of the judgment: A supersedeas bond was not necessary in this case. Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court clearly outlines the conditions for staying execution in ejectment cases pending appeal. It requires either the filing of a supersedeas bond to cover accrued rentals and damages or the deposit of the monthly rental due from time to time. Since the city court's decision did not adjudge any back rentals, and Once consistently deposited the current monthly rentals, the condition for dispensing with the supersedeas bond was met. The attorney's fees awarded, while substantial, do not necessitate a supersedeas bond in the absence of accrued rentals. Therefore, the execution proceeding was groundless and void for not complying with the statutory requirements for staying execution.
Main Doctrine
A supersedeas bond is not necessary to stay execution of a city court's judgment pending appeal if the defeated tenant has deposited the current rentals due, as such deposit effectively stays the execution. The requirement for a supersedeas bond under Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court is contingent upon the existence of accrued rentals in arrears.