GR 47816; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47816; June 10, 1941
SABINO AGUILOS, petitioner, vs. CONRADO BARRIOS and ELENO AGUJETAS, respondents.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 10919 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, a condemnatory judgment was rendered against petitioner Sabino Aguilos. He was allowed to appeal as a pauper. While his appeal was pending perfection, the court, upon a mere verbal motion by the prevailing party and without notice to the petitioner, issued an order on July 20, 1940, for the execution of the judgment. The validity of this order is challenged in this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the order of execution pending appeal based solely on a verbal motion by the prevailing party and without notice to the adverse party, and without stating good reasons in a special order.
RULING
Yes, the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction. The order of execution is invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The rule explicitly provides that before the expiration of the time to appeal, execution may issue only: (1) upon motion of the prevailing party; (2) with notice to the adverse party; and (3) upon good reasons stated in a special order. These requirements are mandatory innovations intended to clarify the law and prevent arbitrary issuances.
First, the motion for execution must be in writing, as required by Rule 26, Section 2, except for specific motions not applicable here. The verbal motion in this case was insufficient. Second, the notice to the adverse party must be served in writing at least three days before the hearing, together with copies of the motion and supporting papers, pursuant to Rule 26, Section 4. The petitioner’s right to rely on this procedural rule is not negated by his mere presence in court. Third, the challenged order failed to state any special reasons justifying immediate execution. This requirement is crucial to prevent irreparable damage, as restitution after a successful appeal may not fully compensate the damages suffered from a premature execution. Execution pending appeal should only be granted when urgent superior circumstances clearly outweigh the risks, and these circumstances must be stated on record.
Therefore, the order of execution is reversed.