GR 136805; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000
DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Diesel Construction Company, Inc. (DCCI) filed a collection case against respondent Jollibee Foods Corporation (JFC) for escalated construction costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of DCCI, ordering JFC to pay a sum of money. DCCI filed a notice of appeal but simultaneously moved for execution pending appeal under Rule 39, citing its financial distress as a “good reason” and offering to post a bond. The RTC granted the motion. JFC also appealed and moved for reconsideration, with an alternative prayer to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution. The RTC denied the motion. The records were elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA). DCCI then filed a motion with the CA for issuance of the writ, arguing the RTC’s execution order had become final. The CA directed the RTC to issue the writ upon DCCI posting a P10 million bond but ordered a stay of execution if JFC posted a supersedeas bond of P15 million. DCCI moved for reconsideration of the stay order, which was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing a stay of execution pending appeal upon the respondent’s filing of a supersedeas bond.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. Execution pending appeal is discretionary and exceptional, requiring “good reasons” as determined by the trial court. The CA correctly recognized that the RTC’s grant of execution pending appeal was based on its finding of good reasons. However, the CA also properly exercised its own discretion to stay that execution upon the posting of a supersedeas bond. The Rules of Court explicitly allow the appellate court to order execution pending appeal or to stay it. Once the case records are transmitted to the appellate court, that court assumes jurisdiction and may issue orders for the protection of the parties’ rights, including staying an execution granted by the trial court. The posting of a supersedeas bond is a valid means to stay execution, ensuring that the appellee can recover the award if the judgment is affirmed. The CA’s decision to balance the interests by allowing execution only if DCCI posted a bond, but permitting a stay if JFC posted a larger counter-bond, was a sound exercise of discretion aimed at securing the amounts in controversy during the appeal. The alleged financial distress of a corporate prevailing party, without more, is not by itself a compelling “good reason” for immediate execution that overrides the right to a stay via a supersedeas bond.