GR 126556; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997
NELSON C. DAVID, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PETRON CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Limay, Bataan, passed Municipal Ordinance No. 90, charging private respondent Petron Corporation approximately P430 million per year for its use of the municipality’s water. Petron Corporation questioned the ordinance’s legality before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan, claiming it does not consume more than P7 million worth of water annually. The RTC upheld the ordinance’s validity. Petron Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. CV-52293). Before the appeal was perfected, petitioner Nelson C. David filed a motion for partial execution pending appeal. The RTC granted the motion, ordering partial execution to the extent of P50 million out of an award of P1,291,456,320.00. Petron Corporation challenged this order via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which found grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and set aside the order. Petitioner David then filed the present petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in setting aside the RTC’s order granting partial execution pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ decision. Execution pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39 of the former Rules of Court is an exception requiring “good reasons” stated in a special order. The Court held that the reasons provided by the RTC did not constitute the requisite good reasons for execution pending appeal. The Court of Appeals correctly noted there was no urgency or immediate necessity for the release of P50 million, as the Municipality of Limay received regular income from local taxes, national government allotments, and substantial realty taxes from Petron. The posting of a bond does not cure the lack of good reasons. The Supreme Court also clarified that while the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the certiorari petition, its obiter dictum on the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 90 should be disregarded, as the merits of the main appeal (CA-G.R. No. CV-52293) should take its normal course.