G. R. No. L-60036 January 27, 1987 INVESTMENTS, INC., petitioner, vs.CO RT O! "##E"LS, TO$"CCO IN% STRIES O!

T&E #&ILI##INES, INC., an' T&E S&ERI!! O! T&E CIT( O! M"NIL", respondents. N"RV"S", J.: The petitioner seeks the nullification by certiorari of two resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. Sp.0 !"#$R% one dated &ece'ber (, )( ), denyin* its 'otion inter alia to declare void the auction sale held on Au*ust !+,)( ) at the instance of respondent Tobacco ,ndustries of the -hilippines, ,nc.. and another dated /anuary )#, )( ! denyin* its 'otion for e0tension of ti'e to file a 'otion for reconsideration. The petitioner also seeks to co'pel respondent Court by mandamus to enforce an earlier resolution in the sa'e case dated &ece'ber )!, )(1(, for the return to it of the chattels sold at public auction. The instant petition ori*inated fro' Civil Case No. ))22)1, instituted by ,nvest'ents, ,nc. 3hereinafter referred to si'ply as 4,nvest'ent5s6 on /uly 1, )(1 in the Court of 7irst ,nstance of 8anila a*ainst the private respondent, Tobacco ,ndustries of the -hilippines, ,nc., 34T,-46. 1 The action was for the annul'ent of a chattel 'ort*a*e e0ecuted by ,nvest'ents in T,-5s favor coverin* five ci*arette$'akin* 'achines, which were about to be sold on foreclosure by the latter. ,nitially a te'porary restrainin* order was issued by the Court e0$parte en9oinin* the Sheriff fro' proceedin* with the auction sale of the 'achines. :ut not lon* afterwards, the Trial Court pro'ul*ated an order denyin* ,nvest'ents5 application for a writ of in9unction and dissolvin* the te'porary restrainin* order. 2 ;nable to obtain a reconsideration of the order, ,nvest'ents brou*ht the 'atter to the Court of Appeals on certiorari and prohibition. 3 That Court, on &ece'ber !), )(1 , directed issuance of a writ of preli'inary iri9unction a*ainst the threatened auction sale upon ,nvest'ents5 postin* a bond in the a'ount of -1",000.00. Subse<uently, however, by resolution dated 8ay )", )(1(, the Court dis'issed ,nvest'ent5s petition and lifted the in9unction. ,nvest'ents filed a 'otion for reconsideration, at the hearin* of which it ar*ued for the reinstate'ent of the preli'inary in9unction since 4the hearin* on the 'erits of the 'ain case below is about to be ter'inated.4 The Appellate Court then su**ested that the in9unction bond be increased to -2"0,000.00 to cover the principal obli*ation. The su**estion havin* been accepted by both parties, ,nvest'ents accordin*ly filed a bond in the increased a'ount. The Court approved the bond on Septe'ber !+, )(1( and issued a restrainin* order which in effect reinstated the in9unction earlier *ranted. =n &ece'ber )!, )(1( the Court of Appeals pro'ul*ated a Resolution declarin* that without pre9udice to the early conclusion of the case in the Trial Court, it dee'ed the proceedin*s before it ter'inated because it had already 4stopped the sale ... of the 'achines ... until final 9ud*'ent shall have been rendered in Civil Case No, ))22)1.4 ) ,n due course, the Clerk of Court caused entry of 9ud*'ent in CA$G.R. No. S-$ 0 !"#$R, but what was inadvertently entered was the dispositive portion of the previous resolution of 8ay )", )(1( dis'issin* the petition for certiorari, and no reference whatever was 'ade to the subse<uent resolutions of Septe'ber !+ and

&ece'ber )!, )(1(. * Trial in Civil Case No. ))22)1 havin* continued in the 'eanti'e, 9ud*'ent therein was rendered on &ece'ber )(, )( 0, dis'issin* ,nvest'ent5s co'plaint for lack of 'erit, and awardin* 'oral and e0e'plary da'a*es to T,-. ,nvest'ents appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. T,- filed with the Trial Court a 'otion for e0ecution pendin* appeal. 6 and with the Court of Appeals > in CA$G.R. No. S-$0 !"#$R > a 'otion to lift the writ of preli'inary in9unction. 7 ,nvest'ents opposed both 'otions on the *round that the in9unction issued by the Appellate Court a*ainst the holdin* of the auction sale was 'eant to subsist until 4final in Civil Case No. ))22)1,4 and since the decision rendered in said case was not yet final and e0ecutory, said in9unction was still in force. ?hat the Court of Appeals did, however was to declare, by Resolution dated /une (, )( ), that it was no lon*er entertainin* the pendin* incidents on the *round that the case before it 3CA$G.R. No. S-$0 !"#6 had lon* been ter'inated. ,n so declarin* the Court evidently relied only on the dispositive portion of its resolution of 8ay )", )(1( erroneously entered by the Clerk of Court 3dis'issin* ,nvest'ent5s petition for certiorari and prohibition6 and failed to take account of the in9unction it had issued thereafter 3upon the filin* of a bond in the increased a'ount of -2"0,000.006. T,- then caused the 'ort*a*ed chattels to be sold by the Sheriff at a public auction on Au*ust !+, )( ), at which sale it was the successful bidder. ,nvest'ents forthwith filed with respondent Court of Appeals a 'otion for conte'pt and for annul'ent of the sale. The Court5s response was to issue on Au*ust ! , )( ) a te'porary restrainin* order stoppin* T,- fro' takin* possession of the 'achines, and co''andin* their return to ,nvest'ents if already in T,-5s possession. 8 Subse<uently, however, by Resolution dated &ece'ber (, )( ), the Court denied ,nvest'ent5s plea for nullification of the sale and for an ad9udication of T,-5s liability for conte'pt. ,n that resolution of &ece'ber (, )( ), the Appellate Court sustained T,-5s position that the restrainin* order en9oinin* the sale of the 'ort*a*ed chattels had lapsed upon the rendition of final 9ud*'ent in Civil Case No. ))22)1, irrespective of the appeal taken therefro'. The Court also declared valid the auction sale of Au*ust !+, )( ), and dissolved the restrainin* order e'bodied in the Resolution of Au*ust ! , )( ) said resolution havin* been 4intended as a te'porary 'easure pendin* deter'ination of the status of the 'ain case below.4 7inally, the respordent Court dis'issed the conte'pt char*es, findin* T,-5s offer to put up a counterbond in lieu of returnin* the 'achines to be substantial co'pliance with said resolution of Au*ust ! , )( ). 9 ,nvest'ents then presented a 'otion for e0tension of ti'e to file a 'otion for reconsideration, pleadin* ti'e pressure, 10 which was denied for lack of 'erit. 11 @ence, the present petition. As is at once apparent, the cru0 of the controversy is the effective life of the preli'inary in9unction of the Appellate Court as re*ards the auction sale of ,nvest'ents5 ci*arette$'akin* 'achines, dated &ece'ber !), )(1 which, after havin* been lifted, was reinstated upon the filin* by ,nvest'ents of the increased in9unction bond of -2"0,000.00 on Septe'ber !+, )(1(. The parties do not dispute the fact that the in9unction was to subsist 4until final 9ud*'ent shall have been

rendered in Civil Case No. ))22)1.4 The point about which they differ is the 'eanin* to be accorded to the ter', 4final 9ud*'ent4 in the conte0t of Civil Case No. ))22)1. ,nvest'ents theoriAes that the 9ud*'ent rendered by the Trial Court in said Civil Case No. ))22)1 on &ece'ber )(, )( 0 was not a 4final 9ud*'ent4 because it was an appealable 9ud*'ent and had, in fact, been appealed seasonably. T,-, for its part, asserts that that 9ud*'ent was in truth a 4final 9ud*'ent4 as the ter' is used in procedural law, even if appealable and hence, upon its rendition, the preli'inary in9unction of the Appellate Court e0pired, its life havin* precisely been fi0ed to endure until such 9ud*'ent shall have been rendered. The concept of 4final4 9ud*'ent, as distin*uished fro' one which has 4beco'e final4 3or 4e0ecutory4 as of ri*ht Bfinal and e0ecutoryC6, is definite and settled. A 4final4 9ud*'ent or order is one that finally disposes of a case, 12 leavin* nothin* 'ore to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.*., an ad9udication on the 'erits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares cate*orir$ally what the ri*hts and obli*ations of the parties are and which party is in the ri*ht. or a 9ud*'ent or order that dis'isses an action on the *round, for instance, of res adjudicata or prescription. =nce rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as decidin* the controversy or deter'inin* the ri*hts and liabilities of the liti*ants is concerned. Nothin* 'ore re'ains to be done by the Court e0cept to await the parties5 ne0t 'ove 3which a'on* others, 'ay consist of the filin* of a 'otion for new trial or reconsideration, or the takin* of an appeal6 and ulti'ately, of course, to cause the e0ecution of the 9ud*'ent once it beco'es 4final4 or, to use the established and 'ore distinctive ter', 4final and e0ecutory.4 D D D 3A6n order or 9ud*'ent is dee'ed final when it finally disposes of the pendin* action so that nothin* 'ore can be done with it in the trial court. ,n other words, a final order is that which *ives an end to the liti*ation. . . ?hen the order or 9ud*'ent does not dispose of the case co'pletely but leaves so'ethin* to be done upon the 'erits, it is 'erely interlocutory. 13 A final order or 9ud*'ent finally disposes of, ad9udicates, or deter'ines the ri*hts, or so'e ri*ht or ri*ht of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on so'e definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes the' until it is reversed or set aside. . . ?here no issue is left for future consideration, e0cept the fact or co'pliance or non$ co'pliance with the ter's of the 9ud*'ent or order, such 9ud*'ent or order is final and appealable. 1) Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court5s task of ad9udicatin* the parties5 contentions and deter'inin* their ri*hts and liabilities as re*ards each other, but obviously indicates that other thin*s re'ain to be done by the Court, is 4interlocutory,4 e.*., an order denyin* a 'otion to dis'iss under Rule )2 of the Rules, or *rantin* a 'otion for e0tension of ti'e to file a pleadin*, or authoriAin* a'end'ent thereof, or *rantin* or denyin* applications for postpone'ent, or production or inspection of docu'ents or thin*s, etc. ;nlike a 4final4 9ud*'ent or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an 4interlocutory4 order 'ay not be <uestioned on appeal e0cept only as part of an appeal that 'ay eventually be taken fro' the final 9ud*'ent rendered in the case. DD =nly final 9ud*'ents or orders shall be sub9ect to appeal No interlocutory order

shall stay the pro*ress of an action, nor shall it be sub9ect of appeal until final 9ud*'ent is rendered for one party oranother. 1* The rule is founded on considerations of orderly procedure, to forestall useless appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the appealin* party by havin* to assail orders as they are pro'ul*ated by the court, when all such orders 'ay be contested in a sin*le appeal. 16 Now, a 4final 9ud*'ent4 in the sense 9ust described beco'es final 4upon e0piration of the peirod to appeal therefro' if no appeal has been duly perfected4 17 or, an appeal therefro' havin* been taken, the 9ud*'ent of the appellate tribunal in turn beco'es final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of ori*in. 18 The 4final4 9ud*'ent is then correctly cate*oriAed as a 4final and e0ecutory 9ud*'ent4 in respect to which, as the law e0plicitly provides, 4e0ecution shall issue as a 'atter of ri*ht.4 19 ,t bears stressin* that only a final 9ud*'ent or order, i.e., 4a 9ud*'ent or order that finally disposes of the action of proceedin*4 20 can beco'e final and e0ecutory. There is no showin* that the parties and their counsel intended to *ive the ter' 4final 9ud*'ent4 a special si*nification, a 'eanin* other than that accorded to it by law and established usa*e. Their a*ree'ent 'ust therefore be construed to 'ean e0actly what it says, that upon rendition by the Trial Court. on &ece'ber (, )( ) of its 9ud*'ent on the 'erits, i. e., its 4 final 9ud*'ent,4 the life and effectivity of the preli'inary in9unction ca'e to an end, re*ardless of the appealability of, or the actual takin* of an appeal froia said 9ud*'ent. The petitioner5s theory of the case, founded on its concept of a 4final 9ud*'ent4 is erroneous and cannot be sustained. ?@ERE7=RE, the petition is dis'issed, with costs a*ainst petitioner. S= =R&ERE&. Yap, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, and Gancayco, JJ., Concur.

G.R. No. 1326** "u+u,- 11, 1998 $! COR#OR"TION, petitioner, vs.E%S" S&"NGRI-L" &OTEL an' RESORT, INC., R !O $. COL"(CO, R !INO T. S"M"NIEGO, C(NT&I" %EL C"STILLO, . O. .&OON C&EN, an' . O. .&OON TSEN, respondents. MEN%O/", J.: =n /uly !2, )((#, petitioner :7 Corporation brou*ht suit to collect fro' respondents

E&SA Shan*ri$Fa @otel and Resort, ,nc. 3ES@R,6, Rufo :. Colayco, Rufino T. Sa'anie*o, Cynthia del Castillo, Guok Ghoon Chen, and Guok Ghoon Tsen the su' of -#),1(),! +.1!, plus da'a*es. The a'ount represents the alle*ed liability of respondents to petitioner for the construction of the E&SA Shan*ri$Fa @otel on St. 7rancis Street, 8andaluyon* City. The case was assi*ned to :ranch )2! of the Re*ional Trial Court, -asi* City. After trial, the said court rendered 9ud*'ent orderin* respondents to pay petitioner -!+,1 0,+(0.00 for unpaid construction work acco'plish'ents under petitioner5s -ro*ress :illin*s Nos. )+ to )(. to return to petitioner the retention su' of -", )0,000.00, with le*al interest on both a'ounts. and to pay petitioner the su's of -),000,000.00 as 'oral da'a*es, -),000,000.00 as e0e'plary da'a*es, -),000,000.00 as attorney5s fees, and the costs. -rivate respondents 'oved for a reconsideration of the decision. @owever, their 'otion was denied whereupon they appealed. -endin* disposition of the appeal, petitioner filed a 'otion for the e0ecution of the decision in its favor which the trial court *ranted in its order dated /anuary !), )((1. -rivate respondents assailed the order of e0ecution pendin* appeal in a petition for certiorari which they filed in the Court of Appeals. ,n due ti'e, petitioner filed a 4Co''ent with =pposition to -reli'inary ,n9unction.4 =n 8arch 1, )((1, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of preli'inary in9unction en9oinin* the trial court fro' carryin* out its order of e0ecution, upon the filin* by respondents of a bond in the a'ount of -) 'illion. 1 ,n a supple'ental resolution issued on the sa'e day, the appellate court issued a writ of preli'inary 'andatory in9unction orderin* that% A. Respondent /ud*e and his branch sheriff actin* under hi' F,7T all *arnish'ents and levy 'ade under the en9oined order of e0ecution pendin* appeal. :. Said Sheriff desist fro' deliverin* to private respondent Bherein petitionerC all his *arnish'ents on petitioners5 bank deposits and, instead, i''ediately return the sa'e to -N:, Shan*ri$la -laAa :ranch. C. ,f the *arnished deposits have been delivered to private respondent Bherein petitionerC, the latter should forthwith return the' to petitioners5 Bherein respondentsC deposit accounts. 2 -etitioner 'oved for a reconsideration of the two resolutions. =n /une #0, )((1, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision 3 settin* aside the trial court5s order of e0ecution pendin* appeal and denyin* petitioner5s 'otion for reconsideration of its two resolutions dated 8arch 1, )((1. The appellate court held that the trial court5s reason for orderin* e0ecution pendin* appeal, that 43petitioner5s6 viability as a buildin* contractor is bein* threatened by 3respondents56 continued refusal to pay their obli*ations,4 did not 9ustify such an order. The appellate court noted that > Contrary to the ordinary run of thin*s it is the prevailin* party in the trial court who

ad'its to be in financial straits and cites his threatened insolvency, not that of BtheC defendant, as a *ood reason for e0ecution pendin* appeal. Nor'ally, we would e0pect a losin* defendant5s i'pendin* insolvency or dan*erous tendency to dispose or dissipate his properties to frustrate future e0ecution, as the lo*ical, *ood reason for plaintiff to ask for advanced e0ecution. ,n addition, the appellate court found that the order of e0ecution pendin* appeal was not in the for' of a special order as re<uired by Rule #(, H! of the Rules of Civil -rocedure. -etitioner 'oved for reconsideration, but this 'otion was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated 7ebruary )), )(( . ) @ence, this petition for review on certiorari. -etitioner contends% , T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS GRAIEFJ ERRE& ?@EN ,T @EF& T@AT -ET,T,=NER5S SER,=;S 7,NANC,AF &,STRESS AN& ;RGENT NEE& =7 7;N&S ?ERE N=T G==& REAS=N T= /;ST,7J EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF ,N ;TTER &,SREGAR& =7 ?EFF$7=;N&E& AN& ESTA:F,S@E& /;R,S-R;&ENT,AF -RECE-TS. ,, T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS ERRE& ?@EN ,T @EF& T@AT T@E F=?ER C=;RTS ?R,T =7 EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF ?AS &E7ECT,IE 7=R N=T @AI,NG C=8-F,E& ?,T@ T@E -RESCR,:E& 7=R8 C=NS,&ER,NG T@AT SECT,=N ! =7 R;FE #( &=ES N=T -RESCR,:E 7=R8AF REL;,RE8ENTS. ,,, T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS GRAIEFJ ERRE& ?@EN ,T 7A,FE& T= C=NS,&ER T@AT =T@ER G==& REAS=NS ?ARRANT,NG EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF EK,STE& ,N T@E CASE AT :AR, T= ?,T% 3A6 T@E A--EAF 7R=8 T@E TR,AF C=;RT5S &EC,S,=N &ATE& !# SE-TE8:ER )((2 ,S =:I,=;SFJ 7R,I=F=;S AN& ;NC=NSC,=NA:FJ &,FAT=RJ. 3:6 T@E -=ST,NG =7 A :=N& :J -R,IATE RES-=N&ENT ,S AN A&&E& /;ST,7,CAT,=N 7=R EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF. ,I T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS ERRE& ,N ,SS;,NG T@E ASSA,FE& ,N/;NCT,=NS

C=NS,&ER,NG T@AT :J &=,NG S= ,T RES=FIE& T@E 8ER,TS =7 T@E 8A,N CASE ?,T@=;T A77=R&,NG T@E -ET,T,=NER &;E -R=CESS =7 FA?. I T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS ERRE& ,N GRANT,NG RES-=N&ENTS5 8=T,=NS 7=R -REF,8,NARJ ,N/;NCT,=NS ?@EN -R,IATE RES-=N&ENTS ?ERE CFEARFJ N=T ENT,TFE& T= SA,& REF,E7. I, T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS ERRE& ,N ,8-R=I,&ENTFJ ,SS;,NG A -REF,8,NARJ 8AN&AT=RJ ,N/;NCT,=N :ASE& =N A 7=R8AFFJ AN& S;:STANT,AFFJ &E7ECT,IE 8=T,=N. I,, T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS GRAIEFJ ERRE& ,N GRANT,NG T@E -REF,8,NARJ ,N/;NCT,=NS ?,T@=;T A77=R&,NG -ET,T,=NER T@E =--=RT;N,TJ T= :E @EAR& T@ERE:J &ENJ,NG ,T &;E -R=CESS =7 FA?. I,,, T@E C=;RT =7 A--EAFS GRAIEFJ ERRE& ,N ,SS;,NG A 8AN&AT=RJ ,N/;NCT,=N =R&ER,NG T@E RET;RN =7 GARN,S@E& 7;N&S ?@,C@ ,S CFEARFJ =;TS,&E T@E -R=I,NCE =7 AN ,N/;NCT,=N. -etitioner filed a supple'ental petition to en9oin the trial court fro' enforcin* the writ of e0ecution it had issued pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals. The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in settin* aside the trial court5s order *rantin* e0ecution pendin* appeal. ?e hold that it did not. First. E0ecution pendin* appeal is not to be *ranted e0cept for *ood reason to be stated in a special order. 7or the *eneral rule is that only 9ud*'ents which have beco'e final and e0ecutory 'ay be e0ecuted. * ,n this case, the issuance of an order *rantin* e0ecution pendin* appeal is sou*ht to be 9ustified on the plea that the 4BrCespondents5 dilatory appeal and refusal to pay petitioner the a'ount 9ustly due it had placed petitioner in actual and i''inent dan*er of insolvency.4 The contention is without 'erit. As we recently held in Philippine Ban Communications ". Court o! #ppeals% 6 o!

to a case o! a natural person &ho (e ill or may (e o! ad"anced a%e. Even the dan*er of e0tinction of the corporation will not per se 9ustify a discretionary e0ecution unless there are showin*s of other *ood reasons, such as for instance, i'pendin* insolvency of the adverse party or the appeal bein* patently dilatory. But e"en as to the latter reason, it &as noted in #*uino "s. +antia%o ,-.- +C/# 012 3-44567, that it is not !or the trial jud%e to determine the merit o! a decision he rendered as this is the role o! the appellate court. Hence, it is not &ithin competence o! the trial court, in resol"in% a motion !or e'ecution pendin% appeal, to rule that the appeals is patently dilatory and rely on the same as its (asis !or !indin% %ood reasons to %rant the motion. 8nly an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent o! an appeals as an additional %ood reason in upholdin% an order !or e'ecution pendin% appeal which 'ay have been issued by the trial court for other *ood reasons, or in cases where the 'otion for e0ecution pendin* appeal is filed with the appellate court in accordance with Section !, para*raph 3a6, Rule #( of the )((1 Rules of Court. Nor does the fact that petitioner filed a bond in the a'ount of -#" 'illion 9ustify the *rant of e0ecution pendin* appeal. ?e have held in a nu'ber ofcases 7 that the postin* of a bond to answer for da'a*es is not alone a sufficient reason for orderin* e0ecution pendin* appeal. =therwise, e0ecution pendin* appeal could be obtained throu*h the 'ere filin* of such a bond. +econd. The fore*oin* reason 9ustifies the issuance by the Court of Appeals of writs of preli'inary prohibitory and 'andatory in9unction a*ainst the trial court, the sheriff, and petitioner. -etitioner assails the issuance of the writs, clai'in* that the sa'e had been issued on the basis of 'otions which had no verification and without affordin* it due process. The 'otions referred to by petitioner 'erely sou*ht the e0peditious resolution of respondents5 application for a writ of preli'inary in9unction as contained in their "eri!ied petition for certiorari. This petition contained the necessary factual aver'ents 9ustifyin* the *rant of in9unction. Nor was petitioner denied the ri*ht to be heard before the writs were issued. -etitioner filed a co''ent which controverted the alle*ations of the petition, includin* its prayer for a writ of preli'inary in9unction. There is, therefore, no basis for its clai' that it was denied due process. :e that as it 'ay, this <uestion beca'e 'oot in view of the appellate court5s decision rendered on /une #0, )((1, per'anently en9oinin* the trial court fro' enforcin* its order of e0ecution pendin* appeal and orderin* petitioner to return the a'ounts paid to it by virtue of the *arnish'ent of respondents5 bank deposits. -etitioner ar*ues that, instead of bein* re<uired to 'ake restitution, the bond for -#" 'illion, which it had posted, should have been proceeded a*ainst. ,t cites the case of $n%ineerin% Construction 9nc. ". :ational Po&er Corp., 8 where this Court, instead of orderin* the 9ud*'ent creditor to return funds that had been i'properly *arnished pursuant to an order of e0ecution pendin* appeal, directed the 9ud*'ent debtor to proceed a*ainst the bond filed by the 9ud*'ent creditor. ?e find this contention correct. Rule #(, H" of the Rules of Civil -rocedure provides that 4?here the e0ecuted 9ud*'ent is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise,

,t is si*nificant to stress that private respondent 7alcon is a 9uridical entity and not a natural person. $"en assumin% that it &as indeed in !inancial distress and on the "er%e o! !acin% ci"il or e"en criminal suits, the immediate e'ecution o! a jud%ment in its !a"or pendin% appeal cannot (e justi!ied as Falcon)s situation may not (e li ened

the trial court 'ay, on 'otion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of da'a*es as e<uity and 9ustice 'ay warrant under the circu'stances.4 As *arnish'ent is a specie of attach'ent, 9 the procedure provided in Rule "1, H!0 of the Rules of Court for the recovery of da'a*es a*ainst a bond in case of irre*ular attach'ent should be applied. This 'eans that notice should be *iven to petitioner5s surety and that there should be a hearin* before it is held liable on its bond. 10 ;hird. ,n its supple'ental petition, petitioner contends that the propriety of the issuance of the writ of e0ecution pendin* appeal is an ancillary issue which should have been raised by respondents in their appeal fro' the trial court5s decision on the 'erits instead of in a separate petition for certiorari. The contention is also without 'erit. Certiorari lies a*ainst an order *rantin* e0ecution pendin* appeal where the sa'e is not founded upon *ood reasons. Appeal is not a speedy and ade<uate re'edy that can relieve the losin* party fro' the i''ediate effects of an i'provident e0ecution pendin* appeal. 11 ?@ERE7=RE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated /une #0, )((1 and its resolutions dated 8arch 1, )((1 are A77,R8E& with the 8=&,7,CAT,=N that recovery of the *arnished deposits delivered to petitioner shall be a*ainst the bond of petitioner :7 Corporation. S= =R&ERE&. /e%alado, Melo, Puno and Martinez, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 89)31 "0r12 2*, 1990 ERI$ERTO G. V"LENCI", petitioner, vs.&ON. CO RT O! "##E"LS, &ON. C"RLOS C. O!IL"%", #r3,1'1n+ Ju'+3, R3+1ona2 Tr1a2 Cour-, $u2a4an, $ran45 6L, T51r' Ju'141a2 R3+1on, %30u-y S53r177 #"$LO R. GLORIOSO, MIG EL $ N(E an' RIC"R%O $"GT"S, respondents. Gamaliel P. Ma%saysay !or petitioner. Benjamin #(alos <a& 8!!ice !or pri"ate respondents. REG"L"%O, J.: 7or review is the resolution of the Court of Appeals, 1 pro'ul*ated on /une !0, )( ( in CA$G.R. S- No. )1#1+, which dis'issed the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by petitioner assailin* the order of respondent 9ud*e *rantin* a writ

of e0ecution pendin* appeal, and the resolution of said respondent court, dated Au*ust (, )( (, denyin* petitioner5s 'otion for reconsideration of the dis'issal. The record shows that on /uly 2, )( +, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 1""+$8 of the Re*ional Trial Court, :ranch KF at 8alolos, :ulacan, for the rescission of a lease contract over a !+ hectare fishpond in -ao'bon*, :ulacan, with a prayer for a writ of preli'inary 'andatory in9unction a*ainst private respondents. 2 -rivate respondents filed an answer with a counterclai' for da'a*es. &urin* the pendency of the case, as found by the trial court, the lease contract e0pired and the defendants therein peacefully surrendered the fishpond to therein plaintiff. Conse<uently, in its decision dated Nove'ber !(, )( , the court a *uo declared that the plaintiff5s prayer for rescission of contract had beco'e 'oot and acade'ic and the only re'ainin* issue for ad9udication was the 'atter of da'a*es clai'ed by the defendants. =n that score, the trial court awarded -)00,000.00 as 'oral da'a*es and -"0,000.00 as e0e'plary da'a*es to each defendant and further ordered plaintiff to pay -#0,000.00 as attorney5s fees, aside fro' the costs of suit. 3 -etitioner clai's that defendant :a*tas acknowled*ed in writin* his receipt of a copy of said decision on /anuary #, )( (. =n the other hand, petitioner received a copy of the decision on /anuary )0, )( (, and filed a notice of appeal on /anuary )2, )( (. ) =n the sa'e day, respondent 9ud*e issued an order that said notice of appeal be 4*iven due course4 and directin* that the records of the case be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. * =n /anuary )1, )( (, private respondents filed a 'otion for e0ecution pendin* appeal, alle*in* that% !. ;nder Section ! of Rule #( of the Rules of Court a writ of e0ecution 'ay be issued to enforce a 9ud*'ent before the e0piration of the period to appeal upon showin* *ood reasons. ,n the cases of @acienda Navarro, ,nc. vs. Fabrador, et al., 2" -hil. "#2. The -eople5s :ank and Trust Co'pany vs. San /uan, et al., F$12(!, April !1, )("". and Rodri*ueA vs. Court of Appeals, 8ay !#, )("#, it has already been held that the filin* of the bond by the successful party is a *ood reason for orderin* e0ecution. 3Cited in 8oran, Rules of Court, Iolu'e !, )(1( edition, -a*e !"26 #. -ursuant to said Section ! of Rule #( and the 9urisprudence on the 'atter, defendant is now 'ovin* that a writ of e0ecution be issued pendin* appeal to enforce 9ud*'ent of this @onorable Court and for this purpose hereby offers to post a bond in such a'ount that this @onorable Court 'ay dee' ade<uate to answer for all da'a*es that the plaintiff 'ay suffer by reason of the e0ecution prayed for. 6 =n 8arch 2, )( (, respondent 9ud*e, over the opposition filed by herein petitioner, issued an order 7 *rantin* the 'otion for e0ecution pendin* appeal, the defendants havin* filed a bond in the a'ount of -##0,000.00 posted by the &o'estic ,nsurance Co'pany of the -hilippines. ,t also *ranted a period up to April !1, )( ( 8 within which the plaintiff 'ay 4file a counterbond to stay the i'ple'entation of the ?rit of E0ecution to be issued.4

-etitioner5s 'otion for reconsideration thereof was denied by the trial court in its order dated April 2, )( (, on the *round that 4an offer of a bond for i''ediate e0ecution of 9ud*'ent is a *ood *round for e0ecution pendin* appeal4 and 4e0ecution pendin* appeal 'ay be *ranted as lon* as 'ovant files a *ood and sufficient surety.4 9 =n April )0, )( (, a writ of e0ecution pendin* appeal was issued by the trial court. 10 -etitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals on the followin* *rounds reproduced in the decision of said respondent court, to wit% T@AT T@E RES-=N&ENT /;&GE, ;-=N T@E -ER7ECT,=N =7 T@E A--EAF 7R=8 T@E &EC,S,=N REN&ERE& =N N=IE8:ER !(, )( ,N C,I,F CASE N=. 1""+$8, A C=-J T@ERE=7 @AI,NG :EEN RECE,IE& :J :;NJE AN& :AGTAS =N /AN;ARJ #, )( (, AS ,N&,CATE& =N T@E REC=R&S =7 SA,& CASE, REG,=NAF TR,AF C=;RT :;FACAN :RANC@ KI 3)"6, T@,R& /;&,C,AF REG,=N, F=ST /;R,S&,CT,=N =IER T@E CASE 3AL;,N= I. SANT,AG=, G.R. N=. "2#2!, ! 8AJ )( 6 AN& ACC=R&,NGFJ, N= F=NGER @A& ANJ /;R,S&,CT,=N T= ENTERTA,N :;NJE5S AN& :AGTAS5 8=T,=N 7=R EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF, FET AF=NE T= ,SS;E A ?R,T =7 EKEC;T,=N. C=NS,&ER,NG T@E EK-RESS -R=I,S,=NS =7 T@E R;FE G=IERN,NG EKEC;T,=N -EN&,NG A--EAF ,N REFAT,=N T= T@E SETTFE& &EC,S,=NAF FA? &E7,N,NG T@E ESSENT,AF REL;,S,TES, STAT,NG T@AT 8ERE 7,F,NG =7 A :=N& &=ES N=T S;77,CE A:SENT =7 3sic6 A S@=?,NG =7 S;-ER,=R C,RC;8STANCES &E8AN&,NG ;RGENCJ ?@,C@ ?,FF =;T?E,G@ T@E ,N/;RJ =R &A8AGES S@=;F& T@E F=S,NG -ARTJ SEC;RE A REIERSAF =7 T@E /;&G8ENT, AN& R;F,NG T@AT A TR,AF C=;RT EKCEE&S T@E F,8,TS =7 ,TS /;R,S&,CT,=N ?@ERE ,T =R&ERS A&IANCE =7 3 sic6 EKEC;T,=N =7 C=NSEL;ENT,AF &A8AGES, EKE8-FARJ &A8AGES AN& ATT=RNEJ5S 7EES. ,NSTEA&, RES-=N&ENT /;&G8ENT 3sic6 S@=;F& @AIE ,8-FE8ENTE& @,S =R&ER G,I,NG &;E C=;RSE T= IAFENC,A5S A--EAF AN& &,RECT,NG T@E REC=R&S =7 C,I,F CASE N=. 1""+$8 7=R?AR&E& T= T@,S C=;RT. 11 As stated at the outset, respondent Court of Appeals dis'issed said petition and refused to reconsider such dis'issal, eventuatin* in petitioner5s appeal to us. ,n our resolution of Au*ust ! , )( (, we issued a te'porary restrainin* order a*ainst respondents. ?e are not persuaded by the first and third *rounds invoked by petitioner. ;nder the present procedure, an appeal is perfected upon the e0piration of the last day to appeal by any party. 12 ,t is not perfected on the date the notice of appeal was filed. 13 ,n the present case, the defendants had up to /anuary ) , )( ( within which to appeal and the plaintiff had up to /anuary !", )( (. The 'otion for e0ecution was filed by defendants on /anuary )1, )( (, before the e0piration of the last day to appeal by any of the parties. The fact that plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on /anuary )2, )( ( did not, as already

stated, result in the perfection of the appeal. &espite plaintiff5s havin* filed his notice of appeal, defendants, had they been so 'inded, could still have availed of the ri*ht, up to their last day to appeal which was /anuary ) , )( (, to also file their notice of appeal or to file a 'otion for new trial or to 'ove for e0ecution as in fact they did, since plaintiff s appeal had not yet been perfected. That respondent 9ud*e *ave 4due course4 to plaintiffs notice of appeal, on the sa'e date when it was filed on /anuary )2, )( (, is inconse<uential. :oth under the for'er and present procedural *overnance on appeals, a notice of appeal does not re<uire the approval of the trial court, 1) and its act of *ivin* 4due course4 thereto, or see'in* approval thereof, does not affect the rule as to when an appeal is dee'ed perfected. -etitioner5s second *round, however, co''ends itself as a 'eritorious sub'ission. ,t is concordant with our present doctrinal pronounce'ents and 'ust be sustained. Confor'ably with Section !, Rule #( of the Rules of Court, in order that there 'ay be a discretionary issuance of a writ of e0ecution pendin* appeal the followin* re<uisites 'ust be satisfied% 3a6 There 'ust be a 'otion by the prevailin* party with notice to the adverse party. 3b6 There 'ust be a *ood reason for issuin* the writ of e0ecution. and 3c6 The *ood reason 'ust be stated in a special order. 1* ,n the case at bar, the *round relied upon by the trial court in allowin* the i''ediate e0ecution, as stated in its order of 8arch !0, )( (, is the filin* of a bond by private respondents. The rule is now settled that the 'ere filin* of a bond by the successful party is not a *ood reason for orderin* e0ecution pendin* appeal, as clarified in /o'as "s. Court o! #ppeals, et al., 16 which we are constrained to <uote for the benefit of the parties% ,t is not intended obviously that e0ecution pendin* appeal shall issue as a 'atter of course. Good reasons, special, i'portant, pressin* reasons 'ust e0ist to 9ustify it. otherwise, instead of an instru'ent of solicitude and 9ustice, it 'ay well beco'e a tool of oppression and ine<uity. :ut to consider the 'ere postin* of a bond a 4*ood reason4 would precisely 'ake i''ediate e0ecution of a 9ud*'ent pendin* appeal routinary, the rule rather than the e0ception. /ud*'ents would be e0ecuted i''ediately, as a 'atter of course, once rendered, if all that the prevailin* party needed to do was to post a bond to answer for the da'a*es that 'i*ht result therefro'. This is a situation, to repeat, neither conte'plated nor intended by law. The e0ercise of the power to *rant or deny i''ediate or advance e0ecution is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 17 @owever, the e0istence of *ood reasons is principally what confers such discretionary power. Absent any such *ood reason, the special order of e0ecution 'ust be struck down for havin* been issued with *rave abuse of discretion. The Court has had the occasion to e0plain the i'portance of such re<uire'ent for *ood reasons, thus% . . . ,f the 9ud*'ent is e0ecuted and, on appeal, the sa'e is reversed, althou*h there are provisions for restitution, oftenti'es da'a*es 'ay arise which cannot be fully co'pensated. Accordin*ly, e0ecution should be *ranted only when these considerations are clearly outwei*hed by superior circu'stances de'andin* ur*ency and the provision contained in Rule #(, Section !, re<uires a state'ent of these circu'stances as a security for their e0istence. 18

The courts look with disfavor upon any atte'pt to e0ecute a 9ud*'ent which has not ac<uired a final character. Section ! of Rule #( which authoriAes the discretionary e0ecution of 9ud*'ents, bein* an e0ception to the *eneral rule, 'ust be restrictively construed. ,t would not be a sound rule to allow indiscri'inately the e0ecution of a 'oney 9ud*'ent, even if there is a sufficient bond. 8oreover, we likewise further reproduce what we said in /adio Communications o! the Philippines, 9nc. ,/CP97 "s. <antin, et al. 19 that awards for 'oral and e0e'plary da'a*es cannot be the sub9ect of e0ecution pendin* appeal, under the followin* rationale% . . . The e0ecution of any award for 'oral and e0e'plary da'a*es is dependent on the outco'e of the 'ain case. ;nlike actual da'a*es for which the petitioners 'ay clearly be held liable if they breach a specific contract and the a'ounts of which are fi0ed and certain, liabilities with respect to 'oral and e0e'plary da'a*es as well as the e0act a'ounts re'ain uncertain and indefinite pendin* resolution by the ,nter'ediate Appellate Court and eventually the Supre'e Court. The e0istence of the factual bases of these types of da'a*es and their causal relation to the petitioners5 act will have to be deter'ined in the li*ht of the assi*n'ents of errors on appeal. ,t is possible that the petitioners, after all, while liable for actual da'a*es 'ay not be liable for 'oral and e0e'plary da'a*es. =r as in so'e cases elevated to the Supre'e Court, the awards 'ay be reduced. Anent the issue of the propriety of a special civil action for certiorari to assail an order for e0ecution pendin* appeal, we have ruled in Jaca et al. "s. =a"ao <um(er Company, et al. 20 that% . . . Althou*h Section ), Rule 2" of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari 'ay only be invoked when 4there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade<uate re'edy in the 3ordinary6 course of law,4 this rule is not without e0ception. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient *round to prevent a party fro' 'akin* use of the e0traordinary re'edy of certiorari where appeal is not an ade<uate re'edy or e<ually beneficial, speedy and sufficient. ,t is the inade<uacy > not the 'ere absence > of all other le*al re'edies and the dan*er of failure of 9ustice without the writ that usually deter'ines the propriety of certiorari. Thus, we held therein, and we so reiterate for purposes of the case at bar, that certiorari lies a*ainst an order *rantin* e0ecution pendin* appeal where the sa'e is not founded upon *ood reasons. Also, the fact that the losin* party had appealed fro' the 9ud*'ent does not bar the certiorari action filed in respondent court as the appeal could not be an ade<uate re'edy fro' such pre'ature e0ecution. That petitioner could have resorted to a supersedeas bond to prevent e0ecution pendin* appeal, as su**ested by the two lower courts, is not to be held a*ainst hi'. The filin* of such bond does not entitle hi' to the suspension of e0ecution as a 'atter of ri*ht. 21 ,t cannot, therefore, be cate*orically considered as a plain, speedy and ade<uate re'edy. @ence, no rule re<uires a losin* party so circu'stances to adopt such re'edy in lieu or before avail'ent of other re'edial options at hand.

7urther'ore, a rational interpretation of Section #, Rule #( should be that the re<uire'ent for a supersedeas bond presupposes that the case presents a presu'ptively valid occasion for discretionary e0ecution. =therwise, even if no *ood reason e0ists to warrant advance e0ecution, the prevailin* party could un9ustly co'pel the losin* party to post a supersedeas bond throu*h the si'ple e0pedient of filin* a 'otion for, and the trial court i'providently *rantin*, a writ of e0ecution pendin* appeal althou*h the situation is violative of Section !, Rule #(. This could not have been the intend'ent of the rule, hence we *ive our i'pri'atur to the propriety of petitioner5s action for certiorari in respondent court. ?@ERE7=RE, the petition is *ranted and the assailed resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals are hereby REIERSE& and SET AS,&E. The writ of e0ecution issued by the trial court pursuant to its order of 8arch !0, )( ( is hereby ANN;FFE&. The te'porary restrainin* order heretofore issued a*ainst the said order and writ is hereby 'ade per'anent. S= =R&ERE&. Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and +armiento, JJ., concur. G.R. No. )002!2 Nove'ber !(, )(() CIT( O! M"NIL", r30r3,3n-3' 8y Mayor G39121ano C. Lo03:, Jr., 03-1-1on3r, ;,. &ON. CO RT O! "##E"LS an' T&E "RM( < N"V( CL $, INC., r3,0on'3n-,. The Chief Fe*al =fficer for petitioner. Ra'on A. GonAales for private respondent. CR /, J.= Respondent Court of Appeals is faulted in this action for certiorari for havin* set aside the order of e0ecution dated /une )0, )((), and the writ of e0ecution issued by /ud*e ?ilfredo Reyes of the Re*ional Trial Court of 8anila in Civil Case No. ()"2##". This was a co'plaint for unlawful detainer filed by the City of 8anila a*ainst private respondent Ar'y and Navy Club for violation of the lease a*ree'ent between the' over a parcel of land on Ro0as :oulevard in the said city. A su''ary 9ud*'ent in favor of the petitioner was rendered by the 8etropolitan Trial Court of 8anila ) and seasonably elevated to the Re*ional Trial Court. To stay its e0ecution, ANC filed a supersedes bond in the a'ount of -!,100,000.00, which was approved by /ud*e Reyes. ! @e subse<uently affir'ed the appealed 9ud*'ent on /une 1, )((). # =n /une )0, )((), the petitioner filed an e0 parte 'otion for e0ecution on the *round that the 9ud*'ent had already beco'e final and e0ecutory under RA 20#). /ud*e Reyes *ranted the 'otion the sa'e day + and at +%00 o5clock that afternoon the writ of e0ecution was served on ANC. ANC 'oved to <uash the writ on /une )), )((), but hours later, sensin* that the 'otion could not be acted upon, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the

Court of Appeals. =n /uly #, )((), that court issued the <uestioned decision, " pro'ptin* the filin* of the present petition for certiorari. The petitioner assails the action of the respondent court and contends that decisions of the re*ional trial court in cases e0clusively co*niAable by inferior courts and are final and e0ecutory under RA 20#). Thus% Sec. ). . . . ,n cases fallin* under the e0clusive ori*inal 9urisdiction of 'unicipal and city courts which are appealed to the courts of first instance, the decision of the latter shall be final% -rovided, That the findin*s of facts contained in said decision are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and the conclusions are not clearly a*ainst the law and 9urisprudence. in cases fallin* under the concurrent 9urisdictions of the 'unicipal and city courts with the courts of first instance, the appeal shall be 'ade directly to the Court of Appeals whose decision shall be final% -rovided, however, that the Supre'e Court in its direction 'ay, in any case involvin* a <uestion of law, upon petition of the party a**rieved by the decision and under rules and conditions that it 'ay prescribe, re<uire bycertiorari that the case be certified to it for review and deter'ination, as if the case had been brou*ht before it on appeal. 3E'phasis supplied.6 The respondents ar*ue on the other hand that under :- )!(, decisions of the re*ional trial court in cases ori*inatin* fro' and within the e0clusive 9urisdiction of the 'etropolitan or 'unicipal trial courts are not final but sub9ect to appeal in a petition for review to the Court of Appeals. Such decisions cannot be e0ecuted where the period of ti'e for the defendant to perfect his appeal has not yet e0pired. Thus% Sec. !!. 3:- )!(6 > Appellate 9urisdiction. > Re*ional Trial Courts shall e0ercise appellate 9urisdiction over all cases decided by 8etropolitan Trial Courts, 8unicipal Trial Courts and 8unicipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial 9urisdiction. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedin*s had in the court of ori*in and such 'e'oranda andMor briefs as 'ay be sub'itted by the parties or re<uired by the Re*ional Trial Courts. The decision of the RTC in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the ,nter'ediate Appellate Court which 'ay *ive it due course only when the petition shows pri'a facie that the lower court has co''itted an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or 'odifications of the decision or 9ud*'ent sou*ht to be reviewed. 3E'phasis supplied.6 ,t is useful at this point to review the distinction between a 4final4 9ud*'ent and one which has beco'e 4final and e0ecutory.4 ,n -F&T E'ployees ;nion v. -F&T 7ree Telephone ?orkers ;nion, 2 the Court observed% . . . 3A6n order or 9ud*'ent is dee'ed final when it finally disposes of the pendin* action so that nothin* 'ore can be done with it in the trial court. ,n other words, a final order is that which *ives an end to the liti*ation . . . when the order or 9ud*'ent does not dispose of the case co'pletely but leaves so'ethin* to be done upon the

'erits, it is 'erely interlocutory. The case of Antonio v. Sa'onte 1 elaborated on this 'atter thus% A final order of 9ud*'ent finally disposes of, ad9udicates, or deter'ines the ri*hts, or so'e ri*ht or ri*hts of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on so'e definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes the' until it is reversed or set aside . . .?here no issue is left for future consideration, e0cept the fact of co'pliance or non$co'pliance with the ter's of the 9ud*'ent or order, such 9ud*'ent or order is final and appealable. :y contrast, in ,nvest'ents, ,nc. v. Court of Appeals, we declared% Now, a 4final 9ud*'ent4 in the sense 9ust described beco'es final 4upon e0piration of the period to appeal therefro' if no appeal has been duly perfected4 or, an appeal therefro' havin* been taken, the 9ud*'ent of the appellate tribunal in turn beco'es final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of ori*in. The 4final4 9ud*'ent is then correctly cate*oriAed as a 4final and e0ecutory 9ud*'ent4 in respect to which, as the law e0plicitly provides, 4e0ecution shall issue as a 'atter of ri*ht.4 ,t bears stressin* that only a final 9ud*'ent or order, i.e., 4a 9ud*'ent or order that finally dispose of the action of proceedin*4 can beco'e final and e0ecutory. A 9ud*'ent beco'es 4final and e0ecutory4 by operation of law. 7inality of 9ud*'ent beco'es a fact upon the lapse of the re*le'entary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected. ,n such a situation, the prevailin* party is entitled to a writ of e0ecution, and issuance thereof is a 'inisterial duty of the court. :oth RA 20#) and :- )!( provide that decisions of the re*ional trial court in its appellate capacity 'ay be elevated to the Court of Appeals in a petition for review. ,n effect, both laws reco*niAe that such 9ud*'ents are 4final4 in the sense that they finally dispose of, ad9udicate, or deter'ine the ri*hts of the parties in the case. :ut such 9ud*'ents are not yet 4final and e0ecutory4 pendin* the e0piration of the re*le'entary period for appeal. &urin* that period, e0ecution of the 9ud*'ent cannot yet be de'anded by the winnin* party as a 'atter of ri*ht. ,n the present case, the private respondent had up to /une !", )((), to appeal the decision of the re*ional trial court. The 'otion for e0ecution was filed by the petitioner on /une )0, )((), before the e0piration of the said re*le'entary period. As the decision had not yet beco'e final and e0ecutory on that date, the 'otion was pre'ature and should therefore not have been *ranted. Contrary to the petitioner5s contention, what the trial court authoriAed was an e0ecution pendin* appeal. ?hile it is true that e0ecution pendin* appeal is allowed under Rule #(, Sec. !, of the Rules of Court, this provision 'ust be strictly construed, bein* an e0ception to the *eneral rule. The reason allowin* this kind of e0ecution 'ust be of such ur*ency as to outwei*h the in9ury or da'a*e of the losin* party should it secure a reversal of the 9ud*'ent on appeal. Absent any such 9ustification, the order of e0ecution 'ust be struck down as flawed with *rave abuse of discretion. ( ?e see no such 9ustification in the case before us. ,t is worth re'arkin* that as the case was not tried under the Rule on Su''ary

procedure, the writ of e0ecution did not even fall under the followin* Section ) thereof % d6 Sec. ) . Appeal. > The 9ud*'ent or final order, includin* that rendered under Section " hereof, shall be appealable to the appropriate re*ional trial court which shall decide the sa'e on the basis of the records, in accordance with Section !! of :atas -a'bansa :l*. )!(. The decision of the re*ional trial court in such civil cases shall be i''ediately e0ecutory. To stay the e0ecution, a supersedes bond is necessary e0cept where one has already been filed in the lower court. This bond continues to be effective if the 9ud*'ent of the re*ional trial court is appealed. :ut durin* the pendency of the appeal, the defendant$appellant 'ust continue to depositin* with the appellate court the pay'ents re<uired in the appealed 9ud*'ent. The rentals accruin* durin* the pendency of the appeal 'ust be deposited on or before the date stipulated, if there is one, and in the absence thereof, on or before the dates provided for in Sec. of Rule 10. 7ailure to 'ake such deposits or pay'ents is *round for e0ecution of the 9ud*'ent. )0 Since the private respondent in the case at bar has filed a supersedeas bond and the stipulated rental is yearly, ))e0ecution 'ay issue only when it fails to 'ake the yearly deposit of the rental, and after notice and hearin*. Such default has not yet been established. The Court notes with disapproval the arbitrary 'anner in which Sheriff &o'inador Cacpal and &eputy Sheriff Reynaldo Cordero acted in deliverin* possession of the leased pre'ises to the petitioner. The evidence shows that they enforced the writ of e0ecution on the sa'e date they received it, forcibly takin* out 'ovables fro' the said pre'ises, includin* chandeliers, furniture and furnishin*s, 'usic or*ans, stereo co'ponents, li*htin* fi0tures and co'puters. They turned off the water, cut off the electricity and disconnected the telephones. They also unreasonably prevented ANC 'e'bers fro' enterin* the pre'ises to *et their personal belon*in*s. Cacpal and Cordero are hereby sternly repri'anded and warned that a repetition of si'ilar arbitrariness will be dealt with 'ore severely. Their conduct was a clear violation of the re<uire'ent that% ;nder the Rules of Court the i''ediate enforce'ent of a writ of e9ect'ent e0ecution is carried out by *ivin* the defendant notice of such writ, and 'akin* a de'and that defendants co'ply therewith within a reasonable period, nor'ally fro' three 3#6 to five 3"6 days, and it is only after such period that the sheriff enforces the writ by the bodily re'oval of the defendant and his personal belon*in*. )! =n the issue of the propriety of a special civil action for certiorari to assail an order of e0ecution pendin* appeal, this Court has held that > . . . Althou*h Sec. ), Rule 22 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari'ay only be invoked when 4there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade<uate re'edy in the 3ordinary6 course of law4 this rule is not without e0ception. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient *round to prevent a party fro' 'akin* use of the e0traordinary re'edy of certiorari where the appeal is not an ade<uate re'edy or e<ually beneficial,

speedy and sufficient. ,t is the inade<uacy > not the 'ere absence of all other le*al re'edies and the dan*er of failure of 9ustice without 'erit that usually deter'ines the propriety of certiorari. )# ?hile appeal is nor'ally e'ployed to <uestion an order or writ which varies the ter's of the decision bein* e0ecuted, it is nevertheless not the sole and e0clusive re'edy. The special civil action of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 2" was available to the private respondent on the alle*ation that the re*ional trial court, in issuin* the writ of e0ecution, co''itted *rave abuse of discretion and acted beyond its 9urisdiction and that the ordinary re'edy of appeal was inade<uate. The last <uestion to be resolved is, assu'in* that the decision of the re*ional trial court had already beco'e 4final and e0ecutory,4 could the said court order its e0ecutionN The rule is that if the 9ud*'ent of the 'etropolitan trial court is appealed to the re*ional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter beca'e final, the case should be re'anded throu*h the re*ional trial court to the 'etropolitan trial court for e0ecution. )+ The only e0ception is the e0ecution pendin* appeal, which can be issued by the re*ional trial court under Sec. of Rule 10 or the Court of Appeals or the Supre'e Court under Sec. )0 of the sa'e Rule. As previously observed, the petitioner has shown no wei*hty 9ustification for the application of the e0ception. @ence, the respondent court co''itted no error in reversin* the Re*ional Trial Court of 8anila and annullin* the writ of e0ecution issued by it on /une )0, )((), pendin* appeal of its decision. ACC=R&,NGFJ, the petition is &,S8,SSE&, and the challen*ed decision of the Court of Appeals is A77,R8E& intoto. No costs. S= =R&ERE&. Narvasa, 8elencio$@errera, GutierreA, /r., -aras, 7eliciano, -adilla, :idin, GriOo$ A<uino, 8edialdea, Re*alado, &avide, /r. and Ro'ero, //., concur. 7ernan, C./., is on leave.