G.R. No. 76342, December 4, 1989
SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXXIX, Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, and RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Rural Telephone Company (Rutelco) leased its Urdaneta Public Telephone System to petitioner Sonida Industries, Inc., under a Memorandum of Agreement. Rutelco later filed an action for rescission of the agreement and damages against Sonida for alleged violations of its terms. During the pendency of the case, Sonida acquired ownership of the leased premises through a foreclosure sale. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Sonida to pay accrued rentals, rescind the agreement, and pay litigation expenses. Notice of this decision was received by the parties on July 7, 1986.
Petitioner Sonida filed its notice of appeal on July 21, 1986. On July 25, 1986, respondent Rutelco filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The respondent judge granted this motion via a special order dated August 7, 1986, and denied Sonida’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Sonida then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the trial court had lost jurisdiction to issue the execution order as the appeal was already perfected, and that no good reason existed for immediate execution since Sonida was already the owner of the property.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the special order for execution pending appeal.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the special order of execution. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court clarified that under the Interim Rules then applicable, perfection of appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party, not upon the court’s approval of the appeal. The reglementary period to appeal expired on July 22, 1986. Since Rutelco’s motion for execution pending appeal was filed on July 25, 1986, it was filed after the appeal was perfected. Consequently, the trial court had already lost jurisdiction over the case and could no longer validly grant the motion. A motion for execution pending appeal must be filed within the reglementary period for appeal, before perfection.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no sufficient good reason to justify execution pending appeal. The trial court’s cited grounds—that the appeal was dilatory, the agreement had expired, and Rutelco was willing to post a bond—were inadequate. The alleged dilatory tactics involved postponements previously granted by the court itself. The expiration of the agreement was immaterial as Sonida had become the owner of the property. The purpose of a bond in execution pending appeal is not to protect the subject matter from dissipation, for which a protective order under the rules is the proper remedy, but to address special reasons warranting immediate execution, which were absent here. Execution pending appeal is not favored as it affects rights yet to be finally adjudicated.