GR 47897; (October, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47897; October 11, 1941
PURIFICACION PASCUA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE PASTOR ENDENCIA, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
This is a petition for certiorari to annul an order issued by the respondent judge. The order required the petitioner, Purificacion C. Pascua, to file a bond of P720 to answer for damages and back rentals for premises belonging to respondent Camila de Liza, which were occupied by the petitioner. The order was issued in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 57647) appealed from the municipal court to the Court of First Instance of Manila. In the municipal court, judgment was rendered ordering the defendant (petitioner Pascua) to vacate the premises and pay rent of P200 per month from June 1, 1940, until vacating. The plaintiff (respondent De Liza) was ordered to pay the defendant P350 for improvements, deductible from accrued rentals. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance but refused to file the special bond required by Section 8 of Rule 72, claiming her approved counterclaim of P350 against the plaintiff made the bond unnecessary. The plaintiff moved for a writ of execution, prompting the respondent judge to issue the contested order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in requiring the petitioner to file the special bond under Section 8 of Rule 72, notwithstanding the existence of a counterjudgment in favor of the petitioner against the respondent for P350.
RULING
No, the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction. The order is in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 72, which mandates that to stay execution of a judgment in an unlawful detainer case upon appeal, the defendant must file a sufficient bond approved by the court to pay rents, damages, and costs down to the time of final judgment. The respondent judge correctly held that the petitioner’s counterclaim of P350 could not serve the purpose of the required bond. The bond’s object is to secure the plaintiff against damages to the property and ensure payment of rents and costs during the appeal’s pendency. These obligations are not adequately covered by the defendant’s counterclaim. This ruling is supported by the precedent in Igama and Reyes vs. Soria and Nepomuceno (42 Phil., 11). The order is affirmed.