SUPERSEDEAS BOND

A supersedeas, properly so called, is a suspension of the power of the

court below to issue an execution on the judgment or decree appealed from:
or, if a writ of execution has issued, it is a prohibition emanating from the
Court of Appeals against the execution of the writ. (A.S. Watson & Co. vs.
Enriquez, 1 Phil. 481)

Clearly, a supersedeas bond is an obligation or undertaking in writing

that is sufficiently secured and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
rents, damages and costs adjudged in the appealed judgment to prevent the
immediate execution of a judgment rendered against the defendant in
forcible entry and detainer cases.

Such execution could only be prevented further by the defendant,

during the pendency of the appeal, by paying to the plaintiff or depositing
with the appellate court the stipulated rental due from time to time under the
contract, as found by the judgment of the court, or, in the absence of a
contract, the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises for
the preceding month, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, at
the rate determined by the judgment. (Section 19, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure; Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 437)

PURPOSE OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to secure payment of the rents

and damages adjudged in the appealed judgment. Hence, the bond is not
necessary if the defendant deposits in court the amount of back rentals fixed
in the judgment. In other words, the supersedeas bond answers only for
rentals as fixed in the judgment and not for those that may accrue during the
pendency of the appeal which are guaranteed by the periodical deposits to be
made by the defendant (Sison vs. Hon. Bayona, 109 Phil. 557). The appeal
bond answers for the costs (Sanchez, vs. Zosa, L-27043, Noveber 28, 1975,
68 SCRA 171, 174; Contreras vs. Dinglasan, 79 Phil. 42).

The execution in an ejectment case has two aspects: (a) possession

and (b) the rentals or reasonable value of the use of the premises. The
mandatory injunction refers to the possession of the premises in litigation.

On the other hand, the supersedeas bond and the monthly deposits are
primarily designed to insure that the plaintiff would be paid the back rentals
or the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises should the
inferior court’s decision in his favor be affirmed on appeal. Hence, if no
bond was filed or no monthly deposit was made, the plaintiff is entitled to
the possession of the premises. To allow the defendant to continue his
possession without any security for the rentals would be prejudicial to the
plaintiff. He might not be able to recover the back rentals when the
judgment in his favor becomes final and executory. In that event, his claim
for rentals would be illusory or ineffectual (De Laureano vs. Adil, 72 SCRA
148; Badillo vs. Tayag, 400 SCRA 494).

The rationale for requiring a losing party to file a supersedeas bond in

order to stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment cases is
to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case the appeal is
found frivolous (Badillo vs. Tayag, 400 SCRA 494).

AMOUNT OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

Under Section 17 of Rule 70, the supersedeas bond shall be equivalent

to the unpaid rents, damages and costs which accrued at the time the
decision was rendered, as determined by the municipal trial court in the said
decision. Hence, there is no need for either the MTC or the RTC to fix the
amount of the supersedeas bond, as the same is evident and computable from
the MTC decision.

The supersedeas bond does not answer for amounts accruing during
the pendency of the appeal as these are subject to the periodic deposits to be
made by the defendant (De Laureano vs. Adil, 72 SCRA 148)

The reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises is that
fixed by the inferior court in its judgment because the rental stipulated in the
lease contract that had expired might no longer be the reasonable value for
the use and occupation of the premises by reason of the change or rise in
value (Aylon vs. Jugo, 78 Phil. 816).

The attorney’s fees and litigation expenses need not be covered by a

bond as these are not the damages contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court (now Section 17 of Rule 70). The damages referred to
therein are only the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of
the property which are generally measured by its fair rental value and cannot
refer to other damages which are foreign to the enjoyment or material
possession of the property (De Laureano vs. Adil, supra; Aznar Brothers
Realty Company vs. Court of Appeals, 327 SCRA 359)

SUPERSEDEAS BOND MAY BE GRANTED ONLY

WHERE JUDGMENT IS NOT YET EXECUTED

The Court of First Instance may allow the filing of a supersedeas bond
(which should properly be filled in the inferior court) only if the judgment is
not yet executed and, to this end, it has the discretion to allow a reasonable
time within which the supersedeas bond may be filed (Acibo vs. Macadaeg,
11 SCRA 446).
SUPERSEDEAS BOND MANDATORY; EXCEPTION

The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and

so if the bond is not filed, the execution of the judgment is a ministerial duty
of the court (Inland Trailways, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 178).

The failure of the defendant to file a supersedeas bond with the

Municipal Trial Court which rendered the judgment or to make periodic
deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time
under the contract, or, in the absence of contract, the reasonable value of the
use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period as
stated in the judgment, is a ground for outright execution of the judgment
appealed from, the duty of the appellate court to order the execution of the
appealed decision being thereby ministerial (Cordova vs. Labayen, 249
SCRA 172).

Section 8 (now Section 19) of Rule 70 can apply even if it is the lessor
who appeals in the sense that in such a case, if the lessee desired to prevent
execution pending appeal, he (the lessee) must still file the supersedeas bond
and deposit in court the accruing rentals (City of Manila vs. Court of
Appeals, 149 SCRA 183).

As a rule, the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and if not

filed, the plaintiff is entitled as a matter of right to the immediate execution
of judgment. An exception is where the trial court did not make any finding
with respect to any amount in arrears, damages or cost against the defendant,
in which case no bond is necessary to stay the execution of judgment. Thus,
in Once vs. Gonzales, 76 SCRA 258, and reiterated in Aznar Brothers Realty
Company vs. Court of Appeals, 327 SCRA 359, it was ruled that the order of
execution premised on the failure to file a supersedeas bond was groundless
and void because no such bond was necessary there being no back rentals
adjudged in the appealed judgment.