VOL.

508,NOVEMBER28,2006 357
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix
*
G.R.No.148090.November28,2006.

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE NEMESIO S. FELIX, in his capacity as Presiding
JudgeofBranch56,RegionalTrialCourt,MakatiCity,RICHARD
C. JAMORA, Branch Clerk of Court, and EMERITA GARON,
respondents.

ActionsJudgmentsExecution Pending AppealRequisites Execution

pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, being more of the exception
rather than the rule.Execution pending appeal is an exception to the
generalrule.TheCourtexplainedthenatureofexecutionpendingappealas
follows:Executionpendingappealisanextraordinaryremedy,beingmoreof
the exception rather than the rule. This rule is strictly construed against the
movant because courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a
judgmentwhichhasnotacquiredfinality.Suchexecutionaffectstherightsof
the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal. The requisites for the
grant of an execution of a judgment pending appeal are the following: (a)
there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse
party (b) there must be good reasons for execution pending appeal (c) the
goodreasonsmustbestatedinthespecialorder.

SameSameSameGoodreasonsconsistofexceptionalcircumstances
of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party
may suffer should the appealed judgment be reversed later.As a
discretionary execution, execution pending appeal is permissible only when
goodreasonsexistforimmediatelyexecutingthejudgmentbeforefinalityor
pending appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal. Good
reasons,special,important,pressingreasonsmustexisttojustifyexecution
pendingappealotherwise,insteadofaninstrumentofsolicitudeandjustice,
it may well become a tool of oppression and inequality. Good reasons
consist of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the
injury or damage that the losing party may suffer should the appealed
judgmentbereversedlater.

_______________
 *THIRDDIVISION.

358

358 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

SameSameSameLeavingtothesheriffthedeterminationoftheexact
amountdueunderthewritofexecutionwouldbetantamounttovestingsuch
officer with judicial powers.The writ of execution pending appeal issued
against Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance is for P56 million.
However, the Court of Appeals ruled that Stronghold Insurance failed to
show that more than P12,755,139.85 had been garnished. The ruling of the
Court of Appeals unduly burdens Stronghold Insurance because the amount
garnished could exceed its liability. It gives the sheriff the discretion to
garnish more than P12,755,139.85 from the accounts of Stronghold
Insurance. The amount for garnishment is no longer ministerial on the part
ofthesheriff.Thisisnotallowed.Thus:LeavingtotheSheriff,asheldby
the Court of Appeals, the determination of the exact amount due under the
Writ would be tantamount to vesting such officer with judicial powers. He
wouldhavetoreceiveevidencetodeterminetheexactamountowing.Inhis
hands would be placed a broad discretion that can only lead to delay and
open the door to possible abuse. The orderly administration of justice
requiresthattheamountonexecutionbedeterminedjudiciallyandtheduties
oftheSheriffconfinedtopurelyministerialones.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RomeoC.DelaCruzforpetitioner.
PonceEnrile,ReyesandManalastasforrespondentEmerita
Garon.

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase
1
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreview
2
assailingthe4May2001
Decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.63334.

_______________

1UnderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.

2PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarinaL.BuzonwithAssociateJusticesEubuloG.

VerzolaandBienvenidoL.Reyes,concurring.Rollo,pp.2534.
 359

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 359
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

TheAntecedentFacts

EmeritaGaron(Garon)filedanactionforsumofmoneydocketed
as Civil Case No. 991051 against Project Movers Realty and
Development Corporation (Project Movers) and Stronghold3
Insurance Company, Inc. (Stronghold Insurance). In an Order
dated19September2000,theRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,
4
Branch 56 (trial court) granted Garons motion for summary
judgment. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Garon, as
follows:

1.DefendantProjectMoversRealtyandDevelopmentCorporationishereby
directedtopayplaintiffasfollows:
OnPromissoryNoteNo.PMRDC9712332:

(A) The sum of PESOS: Six Million Eighty Eight Thousand Seven
HundredEightyThreeand68/100(P6,088,783.68)underPMRDC
9712332
(B) Interest thereon at 36% per annum computed from 19 December
1997untilfullypaid
(C) Apenaltyof3%permonthcomputedfrom03November1998until
full payment on all unpaid amounts consisting of the principal and
interest.

OnPromissoryNoteNo.PMRDCNo.9712333:

(A) ThepesoequivalentofthesumofDOLLARS:OneHundredEighty
Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen and 75/100
(US$189,418.75)underPMRDC9712333
(B) Interest thereon at the stipulated rate of 17% perannum computed
from31December1997
(C) Apenaltyof3%permonthcomputedfrom03November1998until
full payment on all unpaid amounts consisting of the principal and
interest.

2. Defendant Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. is hereby held jointly

andsolidarilyliabletoplaintiffMrs.Garoninthe

_______________

3Id.,atpp.7889.
 4ThroughPresidingJudgeNemesioS.Felix.

360

360 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

amountofPESOS:TWELVEMILLIONSEVENHUNDREDFIFTYFIVE
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE AND EIGHTY FIVE
CENTAVOS(P12,755,139.85).
3. Defendants Project Movers Realty and Development Corporation and
Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. are also ordered to pay plaintiff Mrs.
Garon jointly and severally the sum of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED
THOUSANDasattorneysfeespluscostsofsuit.
All other claims and counterclaims of the parties are hereby ordered
dismissed. 5
SOORDERED.

On 6 October 2000, Garon filed a motion for execution pending

appeal. On 10 October 2000, Stronghold Insurance moved for the
reconsiderationofthe19September2000Orderofthetrialcourt.
6
In an Order dated 23 January 2001, the trial court denied
StrongholdInsurancesmotionforreconsiderationforlackofmerit.
7
In an Order dated 8 February 2001, the trial court granted
Garons motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court
ordered Garon to post a bond of P20 million to answer for any
damage that Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance may sustain
by reason of the execution pending appeal. On 14 February 2001,
BranchClerkofCourtRichardC.Jamora(Jamora)issuedawrit
ofexecutionpendingappeal.
On 16 February 2001, Stronghold Insurance filed a notice of
appeal.
StrongholdInsurancealsofiledapetitionforcertioraribeforethe
Court of Appeals to assail the trial courts 8 February 20018 Order
and the writ of execution pending appeal. In its Resolution of 23
February2001,theCourtofAppealsen

_______________

5Rollo,pp.8889.

6Id.,atp.122.

7Id.,atpp.123126.

8Id.,atpp.129130.

361

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 361
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix
joined the trial court, Jamora and Garon from enforcing the 8
February 2001 Order. However, it turned out that notices of
garnishmenthadbeenservedbeforetheCourtofAppealsissuedthe
9
temporary restraining order (TRO). In its Order dated 7 March
2001, the trial court denied Stronghold Insurances Urgent Motion
fortherecallofthenoticesofgarnishment.

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

In its 4 May 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the

petitionofStrongholdInsuranceandliftedtheTROitissued.
TheCourtofAppealssustainedthetrialcourtinissuingthewrit
of execution pending appeal10
on the ground
11
of illness of Garons
husband. Citing Articles 68 and 195 of the Family Code, the
Court of Appeals held that while it was not Garon who was ill,
Garonneededthemoneytosupportherhusbandsmedicalexpenses
andtosupportherfamily.

_______________

9CARollo,p.136.

10Art.68.Thehusbandandwifeareobligedtolivetogether,observemutuallove,

respectandfidelity,andrendermutualhelpandsupport.
11Art.195.Subjecttotheprovisionsofthesucceedingarticles,thefollowingare

obligedtosupporteachothertothewholeextentsetforthintheprecedingarticle:

(1) Thespouses
(2) Legitimateascendantsanddescendants
(3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
childrenofthelatter
(4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
childrenofthelatterand
(5) Legitimatebrothersandsisters,whetherofthefullorhalfblood.

362

362 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

Stronghold Insurance alleged that its liability is limited only to

P12,755,139.85 in accordance with its surety bond with Project
Movers, plus attorneys fees of P200,000 as awarded by the trial
court.However,theamountinthewritofexecutionpendingappeal
and notices of garnishment is P56 million. Nevertheless, the Court
ofAppealsruledthatStrongholdInsurancefailedtoshowthatmore
thanP12,755,139.85hadbeengarnished.
 Hence,thepetitionbeforethisCourt.
12
InitsResolution dated8August2001,thisCourtissuedaTRO
torestrainandenjointheenforcementofthe8February2001Order
and the writ of execution pending appeal until further orders from
thisCourt.

TheIssue

Thesoleissueiswhethertherearegoodreasonstojustifyexecution
pendingappeal.

TheRulingofThisCourt

Thepetitionhasmerit.

RequisitesofExecutionPendingAppeal

Execution pending appeal is governed by paragraph (a), Section 2,

Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) which
provides:

SEC.2.Discretionaryexecution.
(a)Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.Onmotion
oftheprevailingpartywithnoticetotheadversepartyfiledinthetrialcourt
while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the
originalrecordortherecordonappeal,asthecasemaybe,atthetimeofthe
filingofsuchmotion,saidcourtmay,initsdiscretion,orderexecutionofa
judgmentorfinalorderevenbeforetheexpirationoftheperiodtoappeal.

_______________

12Rollo,pp.171173.

363

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 363
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending
appealmaybefiledintheappellatecourt.
Discretionaryexecutionmayonlyissueupongoodreasonstobestatedin
aspecialorderafterduehearing.
xxxx

Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule. The

Courtexplainedthenatureofexecutionpendingappealasfollows:
Execution pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, being more of the
exception rather than the rule. This rule is strictly construed against the
movant because courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a
judgmentwhichhasnotacquiredfinality.Suchexecutionaffectstherightsof
13
thepartieswhichareyettobeascertainedonappeal.

Therequisitesforthegrantofanexecutionofajudgmentpending
appealarethefollowing:

(a) theremustbeamotionbytheprevailingpartywithnotice
totheadverseparty
(b) theremustbegoodreasonsforexecutionpendingappeal
14
(c) thegoodreasonsmustbestatedinthespecialorder.

As a discretionary execution, execution pending appeal is

permissibleonlywhengoodreasonsexistforimmediatelyexecuting
the judgment before finality or pending
15
appeal or even before the
expiration of the period to appeal. Good reasons, special,
important, pressing reasons must exist to justify execution pending
appealotherwise,insteadofaninstru

_______________

13MarcopperMiningCorporationv.SolidbankCorporation,G.R. No. 134049,17

June2004,432SCRA360,389.
14Maceda,Jr.v.DevelopmentBankofthePhilippines,372Phil.107313 SCRA

233(1999).
15Villamorv.NationalPowerCorporation,G.R.No.146735,25October2004,441

SCRA329.

364

364 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

ment of solicitude and justice,

16
it may well become a tool of
oppression and inequality. Good reasons consist of exceptional
circumstancesofsuchurgencyastooutweightheinjuryordamage
that the losing
17
party may suffer should the appealed judgment be
reversedlater.

ExistenceofGoodGroundstoJustifyExecution
PendingAppeal

Inthiscase,Garonanchorsthemotionforexecutionpendingappeal
onthefollowinggrounds:
 (a) anyappealwhichProjectMoversandStrongholdInsurance
may take from the summary judgment would be patently
dilatory
(b) the ill health of Garons spouse and the spouses urgent
need for the funds owed to them by Project Movers and
StrongholdInsuranceconstitutegoodreasonsforexecution
pendingappealand
(c) Garonisreadyandwillingtopostabondtoanswerforany
damage Project Movers and Stronghold Insurance may
suffer 18should the trial courts decision be reversed on
appeal.

Ingrantingthemotionforexecutionpendingappeal,thetrialcourt
ruled:

A perusal of [t]he records of the instant case will sustain plaintiffs claim
thatdefendantsraisednovalidormeritoriousdefensesagainsttheclaimsof
plaintiff.TheCourtnoteswithinterestthefactthatdefendantsadmittedthe
genuineness and due execution of the Promissory Notes and Surety
Agreementsueduponinthiscase.

_______________

16MarcopperMiningCorporationv.SolidbankCorporation,G.R. No. 134049,17

June2004,432SCRA360.
17DieselConstructionCompany,Inc.v.JollibeeFoodsCorp.,380 Phil. 813 323

SCRA844(2000).
18CARollo,pp.7581.

365

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 365
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

Theinstantcasesimplyturnsontheissuesof(i)whetherornottherewasa
valid, due and demandable obligation and (ii) whether or not the obligation
had been extinguished in the manner provided for under our laws. The
Answers of defendants contained admissions that the obligation was valid
and subsisting and that the same was due and unpaid. Founded as it is on
PromissoryNotesandSuretyAgreements,theauthenticityanddueexecution
of which had been admitted, the Court is convinced that plaintiff is entitled
toajudgmentinherfavorandthatanyappealtherefromwillobviouslybea
ploy to delay the proceedings (See Home Insurance Company vs. Court of
Appeals,184SCRA318).
Thesecondgroundrelieduponbyplaintiffisalsoimpressedwithmerit.
InMaaoSugarCentralvs.Caete,19SCRA646,theSupremeCourtheld
that the movant was entitled to execution pending appeal of an award of
compensation, ruling that his ill health and urgent need for the funds so
awardedwereconsideredgoodreasonstojustifyexecutionpendingappeal
(SeealsoDeLeonvs.Soriano,95Phil.806).
It is established that plaintiffs spouse, Mr. Robert Garon, suffers from
coronaryarterydisease,benignProstaticHyperplasiaandhyperlipidemia.He
is undergoing continuous treatment for the foregoing ailments and has been
constrainedtomakeseriouslifestylechanges,thathecannolongeractively
earnaliving.Asshowninplaintiffsverifiedmotion,shehasurgentneedof
the funds owed to her by defendants in order to answer for her husbands
medical expenses and for the daytoday support of the family considering
herhusbandsillhealth.TheCourtthereforefindsandholdsthatthereexists
19
goodreasonswarrantinganexecutionpendingappeal.

The trial court ruled that an appeal from its 19 September 2000
Orderisonlyaploytodelaytheproceedingsofthecase.However,
theauthoritytodeterminewhetheranappealisdilatorylieswiththe
20
appellate court. The trial courts assumption that the appeal is
21
dilatoryprematurelyjudgesthemeritsofthemaincaseonappeal.
Thus:

_______________

19Rollo,pp.124125.

20Villamorv.NationalPowerCorporation,G.R.No.146735,25October2004,441

SCRA329.
21Id.

366

366 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

Wellsettledistherulethatitisnotforthetrialcourttodeterminethemerit
ofadecisionitrenderedasthisistheroleoftheappellateCourt.Hence,itis
not within the competence of the trial court, in resolving the motion for
execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and22to
relyonthesameasthebasisforfindinggoodreasontograntthemotion.
23
In a Decision promulgated on 7 May 2004 in CAG.R. CV No.
69962 entitled Emerita Garon v. Project Movers Realty and
Development Corporation, et al., the Court of Appeals sustained
thetrialcourtinrenderingthesummaryjudgmentinCivilCaseNo.
991051. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that Stronghold
Insurance could not be held solidarily liable with Project Movers.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the surety bond between Project
Movers and Stronghold Insurance expired on 7 November 1998
beforethematurityofProjectMoversloanson17December1998
and 31 December 1998, respectively. Hence, when the loans
matured,theliabilityofStrongholdInsurancehadlongceased.The
CourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourts19September2000Order
withmodificationbyrulingthatStrongholdInsuranceisnotliableto
Garon.
The 7 May 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals is not yet
final.ItisthesubjectofapetitionforreviewfiledbyGaronbefore
thisCourt.Thecase,docketedasG.R.No.166058,isstillpending
withthisCourt.WhilethisCourtmayeitheraffirmorreversethe7
May2004DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,thefactthattheCourt
of Appeals absolved Stronghold Insurance from liability to Garon
shows that the appeal from the 19 September 2000 Order is not
dilatoryonthepartofStrongholdInsurance.

_______________

22PlantersProducts,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,375Phil.618,623317 SCRA 195

(1999).
23PennedbyAssociateJusticeEugenioS.LabitoriawithAssociateJusticesJose

L.Sabio,Jr.andHakimS.Abdulwahid,concurring.Rollo,pp.275285A.

367

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 367
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

We agree with Stronghold Insurance that Garon failed to present

goodreasonstojustifyexecutionpendingappeal.Thesituationsin
thecasescitedbythetrialcourtarenotsimilartothiscase.InMa
24
ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Caete, Caete filed an action for
compensation for his illness. The Workmens Compensation
Commission found the illness compensable. Considering Caetes
physical condition and the Courts finding that he was in constant
dangerofdeath,theCourtallowedexecutionpendingappeal.InDe
25
Leon, et al. v. Soriano, et al., De Leon, et al. defaulted on an
agreementthatwaspeculiarlypersonaltoAsuncion.Theagreement
was valid only during Asuncions lifetime. The Court considered
that Sorianos health was delicate and she was 75 years old at that
time.Hence,executionpendingappealwasjustified.Inthiscase,it
wasnotGaron,butherhusband,whowasill.
The posting of a bond, standing alone and absent the good
reasons required under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules, is not
enough to allow execution pending appeal. The mere filing of a
bondbyasuccessfulpartyisnotagoodreasontojustifyexecution
pending appeal as a combination of circumstances is the dominant
26
considerationwhichimpelsthegrantofimmediateexecution. The
bondisonlyanadditionalfactorfortheprotectionofthedefendants
27
creditor.
Theexerciseofthepowertograntordenyamotionforexecution
pending appeal is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
28
court. However, the existence of good reasons is indispensable to
 28
court. However, the existence of good reasons
29
is indispensable to
the grant of execution pending appeal. Here, Garon failed to
advance good reasons that would justify the execution pending
appeal.

_______________

24125Phil.104719SCRA646(1967).

2595Phil.806(1954).

26Flexo Manufacturing Corporation v. Columbus Foods, Incorporated, G.R. No.

164857,11April2005,455SCRA272.
27Id.

28Villamorv.NationalPowerCorporation,supranote20.

29Id.

368

368 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

ExecutionPendingAppealagainstStrongholdInsuranceExceeds
itsLiabilityundertheTrialCourtsOrder

Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourts19September2000Order
states:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered[,]thisCourtherebyrendersjudgment
infavoroftheplaintiffMrs.EmeritaI.Garonasfollows:
xxxx
2. Defendant Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. is hereby held jointly
and solidarily liable to plaintiff Mrs. Garon in the amount of PESOS:
TWELVEMILLIONSEVENHUNDREDFIFTYFIVETHOUSANDONE
HUNDRED THIRTY NINE AND EIGHTY FIVE CENTAVOS
(P12,755,139.85).
3. Defendants Project Movers Realty and Development Corporation and
Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. are also ordered to pay plaintiff Mrs.
Garon jointly and severally the sum of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED
THOUSANDasattorneysfeespluscostsofsuit.
30
xxxx

ThewritofexecutionpendingappealissuedagainstProjectMovers
31
andStrongholdInsuranceisforP56million. However,theCourtof
Appeals ruled that Stronghold Insurance failed to show that more
thanP12,755,139.85hadbeengarnished.TherulingoftheCourtof
Appeals unduly burdens Stronghold Insurance because the amount
garnishedcouldexceeditsliability.Itgivesthesheriffthediscretion
to garnish more than P12,755,139.85 from the accounts of
Stronghold Insurance. The amount for garnishment is no longer
ministerialonthepartofthesheriff.Thisisnotallowed.Thus:

Leaving to the Sheriff, as held by the Court of Appeals, the determination

oftheexactamountdueundertheWritwouldbe

_______________

30Rollo,p.88.

31Id.,atp.127.

369

VOL.508,NOVEMBER28,2006 369
StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Felix

tantamount to vesting such officer with judicial powers. He would have to

receiveevidencetodeterminetheexactamountowing.Inhishandswouldbe
placed a broad discretion that can only lead to delay and open the door to
possible abuse. The orderly administration of justice requires that the
amount on execution be determined32judicially and the duties of the Sheriff
confinedtopurelyministerialones.

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the 4 May 2001 Decision of the

CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.63334.WealsoSETASIDE
the 8 February 2001 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City,Branch56andthewritofexecutionpendingappealissuedon
14 February 2001. We make permanent the temporary restraining
orderweissuedon8August2001.
SOORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), CaprioMorales, Tinga and

Velasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Judgmentsetaside.

Notes.The Court of Appeals cannot grant a Motion for

Execution pending appeal on a case brought to said Court not on
appeal but on a petition for certiorari. (Abellera vs. Court of
Appeals,326SCRA485[2000])
The finality of the decision on the main case renders academic
theissueraisedintheinstantpetitionwithrespecttotheproprietyof
the order allowing execution pending appeal. (Standard Insurance
Co.,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,356SCRA572[2001])

o0o

_______________
 32 See Windor Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L34332, 27
January1981,102SCRA275,282.

370

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.