GR 210218; (August, 2016) (Digest)

G.R. No. 210218, August 17, 2016
National Power Corporation, Petitioner vs. Heirs of Antonina Rabie, represented by Abraham R. Dela Cruz, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed a complaint for expropriation against respondents Heirs of Antonina Rabie to acquire an 822-square meter portion of a residential lot in Laguna for use as an access road to a power plant. Respondents claimed the affected area was 2,274 square meters and sought just compensation at a higher market value, plus payment for NAPOCOR’s alleged unauthorized use since 1940. NAPOCOR deposited ₱411,000 based on BIR zonal valuation. The trial court, upon a Board of Commissioners’ report, ordered the expropriation of 822 square meters at ₱11,000 per square meter (total ₱9,042,000) and awarded respondents yearly rentals of ₱12,000 from 1940 with 12% interest. NAPOCOR filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Respondents then filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. The trial court granted the motion and issued a Writ of Execution. NAPOCOR’s funds were garnished. NAPOCOR filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court still had jurisdiction when it ruled on the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
2. Whether there existed good reasons for the execution of the trial court’s decision pending appeal.
3. Whether NAPOCOR’s funds may be garnished or be the subject of execution.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court had jurisdiction. The motion for execution pending appeal was filed by respondents seven days after their receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, which was before the lapse of the 15-day period to appeal. Prior to the transmittal of the records, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction and may issue an order for execution pending appeal.
2. No, there were no good reasons stated to justify discretionary execution. The trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal merely stated “showing good reasons as stated in the motion” without specifying or explaining these reasons. The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Borja v. Court of Appeals (which cited advanced age) was misplaced, as respondents’ motion only made general allegations about their financial condition and the property’s deterioration without substantiation. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by granting execution without clearly stating and explaining the basis for good reasons.
3. The Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the issue of garnishment in view of its ruling on the lack of good reasons for discretionary execution.
The petition was GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was SET ASIDE.