GR 95667; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95667 ; May 8, 1991
JOSE C. BORJA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and RURAL BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose C. Borja filed a complaint for unpaid commissions and damages against private respondent Rural Bankers Association in 1979. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in his favor in 1984, which was promulgated in November 1986. Borja, then 73 years old, moved for execution pending appeal. The trial court denied his motion in July 1988, reasoning that execution would affect the issues on appeal. Borja filed a second motion with the trial court in March 1989 and a third with the Court of Appeals in April 1990, both of which were denied. The appellate court, noting it had ordered the retaking of a witness’s testimony, saw no justification for immediate execution. By September 1990, when the records were elevated to the Court of Appeals, Borja was 75. He filed the present certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for execution pending appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Borja’s motion for execution pending appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the appellate court’s resolutions. While execution pending appeal is discretionary under Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, it may be ordered upon “good reasons.” The Court found that Borja’s advanced age—76 at the time of the petition—constituted a compelling “good reason.” The case had been pending for over a decade since its filing, and further appellate proceedings promised additional delay. The Court recognized the petitioner’s legitimate apprehension that he might not live to enjoy the judgment’s fruits, rendering a future favorable decision meaningless to him personally. This circumstance, coupled with his willingness to post a supersedeas bond, justified execution. The Court held that the respondent court’s failure to consider this paramount equitable consideration constituted grave abuse of discretion, reversible under Rule 65. Execution pending appeal was thus ordered upon the filing of a sufficient supersedeas bond.