G.R. No. 29178, March 6, 1928
CHUA A. H. LEE, petitioner, vs. EMILIO MAPA, as auxiliary judge of first instance presiding over the third branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, CORNELIO CRUZ, and his wife CIRIACA SERRANO DE CRUZ, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
A trial court retains jurisdiction to stay the execution of a final and affirmed judgment based on equitable grounds arising from facts or circumstances occurring *after* the judgment has become final, provided such stay does not constitute a review or reversal of the appellate court’s decision.

FACTS

1. Petitioner Chua A. H. Lee obtained a favorable money judgment in Civil Case No. 30569 against respondents Cornelio Cruz and his wife. The judgment, affirmed by the Supreme Court, ordered the respondents to pay a sum of money, with the stipulation that if they defaulted, certain pledged properties would be sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment.
2. After the record was remanded and an execution was issued, the respondents moved for a stay of execution. They later filed a separate civil action (Case No. 32865) against the petitioner for damages, alleging that the petitioner, as pledgee, failed to preserve the validity of the pawn tickets (the pledged securities) by not paying the premiums, causing their loss.
3. Relying on this new action for damages, the respondents moved in the original case for a stay of execution pending the final determination of their damage suit. Judge Opisso granted the stay upon the filing of a bond. Judge Mapa later denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
4. The petitioner filed this petition for prohibition, arguing that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by staying the execution of a final and affirmed judgment, citing the doctrines in *Shioji vs. Harvey*, *Cabigao vs. Del Rosario*, and *Wolfson vs. Del Rosario*.

ISSUE

Did the trial court act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in granting a stay of execution of a final and affirmed judgment based on a subsequent separate action for damages filed by the judgment debtors?

RULING

NO, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The petition for prohibition is DENIED.

The Supreme Court held that while the general rule, as established in the cited cases, is that a lower court cannot review, interpret, or interfere with matters finally settled on appeal, this rule is not absolute. The Court clarified that:
1. The trial court retains a certain control over the writ of execution and has the discretionary power, under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to stay execution on equitable grounds.
2. The grounds invoked by the respondentsthe alleged loss of the pledged properties due to the petitioner’s post-judgment actions and the filing of a separate damage suitare facts and circumstances that arose subsequent to the finality of the judgment and the remand of the case. These could not have been foreseen or raised during the original trial or appeal.
3. Therefore, the stay of execution was not an attempt to review or reverse the Supreme Court’s affirmed judgment. It was a valid exercise of the trial court’s incidental power to control its processes to conform to law and justice (under Section 11, No. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure), based on subsequent equitable grounds.
4. The case falls under the recognized exception where a stay may be allowed for post-judgment events, such as to allow a set-off or, as here, where a related claim for damages arising from the execution process is pending.

*Petition denied, with costs.*