GR 126158; (September, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126158 September 23, 1997
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, as Judge, RTC of Quezon City Branch 101, FALCON GARMENTS CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Falcon Garments Corporation obtained a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) and maintained a current account with the bank. Falcon defaulted on the loan and subsequently filed a complaint against PBCom, alleging unauthorized withdrawals from its account. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Falcon, ordering PBCom to restore a specified sum to Falcon’s current account, while also ordering Falcon to pay its loan obligation to PBCom. Both parties appealed. Falcon filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by Judge Pedro T. Santiago. The order, however, deviated from the judgment by directing PBCom to directly pay the monetary award to Falcon, instead of restoring it to the current account as decreed in the decision. The Court of Appeals upheld this order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal, which altered the essential terms of the final judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Execution pending appeal is an exception under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requiring good reasons. Here, the trial court’s order for execution pending appeal was invalid because it substantially varied the judgment. The original decision ordered PBCom to restore the amount to Falcon’s current account. The execution order, however, commanded a direct payment to Falcon. This alteration changed a restoration of a bank account credit into a cash payment, which is a different and more onerous obligation for the bank. An execution that exceeds or varies the judgment is a nullity. The Court emphasized that the alleged “strained relations” cited by Falcon did not justify a deviation from the judgment’s specific terms. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming an invalid execution order. The Supreme Court ordered the return of the amounts collected under the flawed writ.