Vicenta Ylanan, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Aquilino O. Mercado, Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-6089, April 20, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Civil procedure -- Philippines

Court of First Instance -- Cebu

Court of Appeals

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing the case involving the authenticity of the signature of Aquilino Mercado to Exhibit A. In this appeal, it mainly focuses on the issue whether the motion for reconsideration filed in the municipal court is a pro forma motion.]

Fulltext

this was registered by the plainti{f on the ground that it was insufficient, and the latter thereupon filed a counterbond for Pl0,000. Subsequently, the plainti(f also filed a motion for reconsideration dated February 20, 1951, praying that the original order for the execution of the judgment be reinstated. On March 2, 1951, the court set aside its order of February 10, 1951, and directed anew the issuance of an execution, thus: X X x. It having been shown that the property would be properly taken care of and administered by the plaintiff herein for the better preservation and protection of same and inasmuch as the issuance of a writ of execution having been determined in its order of February 3, 1951, the order of this court dated February 10, 1951, is hereby set aside, and let execution issue in this case u1>0n filing by the l)laintiff of a bond in the total sum of PB,000, and an additional bond of Pl,000 to be filed by the plaintiff G. P. Sebellino as embodied in the order of this court of February 3, 1951. It is against this order that the present action ls filed, petitioners contending that after the filing of the supersedeas bond, the execution of the judgment could not be justified by the reason expressed in the order, i.e., that the property could be better preserved or protected in the possession of the plaintiff. The genual rule is that the execution of a judgment is stayed by the perfection of an appeal. While provisions are inserted in the Rules to forestall cases in which an executed judgment is reversed on appeal, the execution of the judgment is the exception, not the rule. And so execution may issue only ''upon good reasoris stated Jn the order." The grounds for the granting of the execution must be good gMunds. <Aguil<'s v. Rarrios. et a.I G. R. No. 47816, 72 Phil. 285.> It follows that when the court has already granted a stay of execution, uf}(')n the adverse party's filing a supersedeas bond, the circumstances justiCying exceution in spite of the supersedeas bond must be paramount; they should outweigh thl! security offered by the supersede:u bond. In this last case, only compelling reai::ons of urgency or justice can justify the exi:cutiun. llbid.) The "good reason" stated in the order subject o( this proceeding is "the better preservation and protectoin of the property." But we find from tho pecord tha.t the properties are three parcels of land. And we are at a loss to understand how and why they could be better preserved if in the hands of the administrator. Besides, the judgment shows that the lands are in the hands of the petitioners, who already ha,·e titles thereto, and as there is nothing to indicate that they were acquired in bad faith, the presumption arises that the purchasers are possessors in good faith. It seems, therefore, that the execution of the judgment, after the giving of the supersedeas bond, can not be justified, there being no urgent or compelling reasons (or granting the same. We, there· fore, hold that the execution was granted with grave abuse of discretion. The petition is, therefore, granted, and the order of the respondent judge of March 2, 1951, is set aside, and that of February 10, 1951, revived. With costs against the respondents. Paras, Pablo, Bengzoi, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, and Bautista. Angelo, J.J., concur. XXVlfl Vicenta Ylnr.a.n, Plaintilf-AvPellee vs. Aquilino 0. Mereado, De/endant .. AppeUant, G. R. No. I~-6089, April 20, 1954. Labrador, J. CIVIL PROCEDURE; PRO FORMA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION. - Where the motion for reconsideration was based on the claim that the finding of the trial court as to the authenticity of the disputed signature, Exhibit "A", was not justified by the evidence :mbmltted which is the testimony of the expert witness denying such authenticity, and said motion points out why the finding of the court is not justified by the evidence, said motion is clearly Mt a pro forrna motion for new trial or reconsideration. Salvridora A.. Loyroiio for appellarit. Pablo Al/eche for a.ppellee. DECISION LABRADOR, J.: This is an appeal from au order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing the above-entitled case, which had been appealed to said court from the municipal c :ourt of Cebu City. The appeal wns certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals on the ground that only questions of law are raised in the appeal. The action brought in the municipal court of Cebu City seeks t.J recover from the defendant the sum of PlS0.50, the balance of the value of furniture and other goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the Oefendant. The main issue of fn.ct involved in the trial was the authenticity of the signature of one Aquilino 0. Mercado to Exhibit A. Judgment was entered i:i. said court in favor of the plainti{f a.nd against the defendant for the sum of Pl80.50 as prayed for in the complaint. The decision was rendered ,,n November 18, 1949, and the defrndant received notice thereof on November 21, 1949. On December 2, 1949, defendant presen~ed a motion for the reconsideration of the decision, alleging that the same was not justified in view of the fact that the signature to Exhibit A is forged, according to the testimony of an expert witness. It was also alleged that for the sake of justice and equity the court should order the National Bureau of Investigation to examine the disputed signature in Exhibit A . This motion for reconsideration was denie'd, and the defendant appealed to the Court of First InSto.nce. The appeal was perfected within fourteen day:; if the period of time taken by the court in deciding the motion for reconsideration is not taken into account. ACter the defendant had :filed an answer in the Court of First Instance, plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was ifled beyond the period prescribed in the rules. In support thereof it was claimed that the motion for reconsidi:ration filed in the municipal court was a pro f<>rmtJ, motion, which did not suspend the period for perfecting the appeal. The Court of First Instance sustained the motion to dismiss the appen.l. holding that the ground on which the motion for nconsideration is based is not one of those !'cquired for a motion for new trial under Section 1 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The only question at issue in this Court is whether the motion for reconsideration filed in the municipal court is a pro /0r1na ?r).<>tion. The question must be decided in the negati\'C, The motion was based on the claim that the finding of the trial court as to the 11.uthenticity of the disputed siruature to Exhibit A was not justified by the evidence submitted, which is the testimony of the expert witness denying such auth~nticity . This is a. motion which points out why the finding of the court is not justified by the evidence, and is clenrly not a rr.-o forma motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court of First Instance erred in holding that it dld not suspend the period for pel'fecting t~.e appeal. The order of dismissal is hereby rE:versed, and the case is ordered nmanded to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings. Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Montetn411or, Reyes; Jugo, Bautitst.a Angelo, ConctJpcion, and Diokno, J.J., concur. Mr. /1tstico Padilla took no part. 306 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL June 30, 1954

pages

306

Media