Aquino v. Santiago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eufemia Roxas and Floro Roxas filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Tomasita Aquino in the Court of First Instance of Bataan, docketed as Civil Case No. 4627. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, and certain properties of the defendant were levied and placed under custodia legis. The defendant filed an answer with a counterclaim alleging compensation as a defense. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to pay P53,280.00, plus legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Procedural History: The defendant filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond, stating an appeal to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order disapproving the notice of appeal for "want of ground to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court." The Petition: The defendant filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction by the respondent judge in granting execution pending appeal and in disapproving the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the notice of appeal. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting the execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The questioned Order of the respondent judge of February 16, 1981, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE as null and void. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court is made permanent. The records of the case are remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the merits of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disapproval of the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the notice of appeal. The Court clarified that the trial court's role under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is to approve or disapprove the record on appeal and the appeal bond, but not the notice of appeal, which does not require the trial court's approval. The judge, realizing his error, subsequently recalled and set aside the order disapproving the notice of appeal, rendering this issue moot and academic. On the validity of the order of execution pending appeal: The Supreme Court found that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for execution pending appeal. Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires that such an order be based upon "good reasons" stated in a special order. The Court noted that the trial judge failed to verify the petitioner's claim that the attached properties, which were in custodia legis, were more than sufficient to satisfy the judgment. The judge erroneously assumed the value of the attached properties was equivalent to the attachment bond of P20,000.00, despite the judgment amount being P53,280.00. The Court emphasized that the trial judge should have ascertained the actual worth of the attached properties, which could have rendered execution pending appeal unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court rejected the trial judge's reasoning that the appeal was solely for delay, stating that it is not for the trial judge to determine the merit of a decision he himself rendered; that is the prerogative of the appellate court. The Supreme Court reiterated that compelling circumstances warranting prompt execution, such as the appeal being for delay or the prevailing party being unable to enjoy the judgment, must be substantiated with good reasons.
Main Doctrine
A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in disapproving a notice of appeal, as its role is limited to approving or disapproving the record on appeal and appeal bond. Furthermore, an order for execution pending appeal must be based on good reasons stated in a special order, and the trial court cannot determine the merit of its own decision, as that is the appellate court's prerogative.