GR 112569; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112569; April 12, 2000
Shuhei Yasuda, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Blue Cross Insurance, Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Shuhei Yasuda, a Japanese national, filed a collection and damages case against YRL Shipping Co. S.A. and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted his application for a writ of preliminary attachment. To discharge the attached properties, the defendants, except one, filed counterbonds issued by respondent Blue Cross Insurance, Inc. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Yasuda. The defendants appealed. Pending appeal, the RTC, upon Yasuda’s motion, granted execution of the monetary award. The sheriff could only execute a portion as the principal defendants could not be located. Yasuda then applied for judgment against the counterbonds, which the RTC granted. Blue Cross filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the execution pending appeal and the levy on its counterbonds.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s orders granting execution pending appeal and the subsequent judgment against the surety’s counterbonds.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The RTC’s grant of execution pending appeal was improper. Execution pending appeal is discretionary but must be based on good reasons stated in a special order. The RTC’s cited reasons—the appeal being dilatory, Yasuda being a sickly foreigner, and the vessel deteriorating—were insufficient. An appeal being dilatory is a conclusion, not a factual finding. The personal circumstances of a party and the condition of a vessel not subject of the money judgment do not constitute good reasons to execute a monetary award prematurely. Since the execution pending appeal was invalid, all proceedings emanating from it, including the levy on the counterbonds, were likewise void. A surety’s liability on a counterbond is contingent upon a valid execution against the principal. The RTC’s orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion, correctly remedied by the CA via certiorari. The special civil action was the proper remedy as an order of execution is generally not appealable.