Sayman v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case stems from a dispute between the heirs of the late Ignacia Sayman and other parties, and Carlos A. Go Thong & Co., Inc. The underlying conflict is intimately related to two other cases, G.R. Nos. L-29479 and L-29716, involving the same parties and originating from the same two cases filed in the trial court. 2. Procedural History: Following a final and executory judgment in the trial court, a writ of execution was issued. However, this issuance occurred during the pendency of a petition for relief from the judgment. The respondent, Carlos A. Go Thong & Co., Inc., challenged the writ of execution via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. On December 14, 1965, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the trial court's writ of execution. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for certiorari. They argue that the Court of Appeals should not have entertained the certiorari petition because a motion for reconsideration of the execution order was not filed in the trial court. Furthermore, they contend that the trial judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the execution and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the mere filing of a petition for relief justifies staying execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals should have entertained the petition for certiorari despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration in the trial court. Whether the trial judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the execution of the judgment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the mere filing of a petition for relief justifies the stay of execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals annulling and setting aside the writ of execution issued by the trial court is sustained. Costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entertaining certiorari without a motion for reconsideration: The general rule requiring a motion for reconsideration before recourse to certiorari is not absolute. It may be dispensed with when such motion would serve no useful purpose, such as when the same point is raised, the error is patent, the relief is extremely urgent, or the issue is purely one of law. In this case, the question of whether a writ of execution may issue under the circumstances was purely a question of law, and the need for urgent relief was patent due to the issuance of the writ. Furthermore, the trial court had already been given opportunities to consider the objections to the writ through a prior motion for reconsideration and in connection with the petition for relief. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the stay of execution pending a petition for relief: The Court held that the trial judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the execution, but rather, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the execution was premature. The rules provide that when a petition for relief is filed, the court may issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the rights of the parties. Allowing the execution of a judgment during the pendency of a petition for relief could render an appeal from the denial of such petition illusory, and any favorable decision on appeal would be nugatory. The possibility of the judgment being modified or reversed on appeal necessitates caution against premature execution. On the issue of whether the mere filing of a petition for relief justifies a stay of execution: The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the supervisory power of a higher court may be exercised to prevent premature and unjust execution of a judgment, especially when an appeal from the denial of a petition for relief is possible. If the writ of execution were allowed to proceed, the appeal might be rendered illusory. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the circumstances warranted a stay of execution to prevent the appeal from becoming moot.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a petition for relief from judgment does not automatically stay the execution of the judgment, but the court may issue a preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending the proceeding. Allowing execution during the pendency of a petition for relief may render an appeal illusory.