G.R. No. L-15971; July 31, 1961
Pedro Rebadulia, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, Judge, Court of First Instance of Samar, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners posted bail bonds totaling P40,000 for the provisional liberty of the accused in Criminal Case No. 2909 for robbery in band. When the accused failed to appear at the trial on August 22, 1958, the respondent judge ordered the forfeiture of the bonds and gave the bondsmen 30 days to produce the accused and show cause. On March 20, 1959, the court, unsatisfied with the petitioners’ explanation, rendered judgment against them for the bond amounts, ordering it to be “immediately executed.”
The petitioners received a copy of the judgment on April 11, 1959. They filed a motion to set it aside on April 14, 1959, and also filed a notice of appeal. The lower court initially denied the appeal, holding the judgment was final and unappealable. However, upon petitioners’ motion, which the provincial fiscal did not oppose, the court reconsidered and gave due course to the appeal, now docketed as G.R. No. L-15584 in the Supreme Court. Despite this pending appeal, the respondent sheriff issued a notice of public auction sale for the petitioners’ properties pursuant to a writ of execution issued on March 31, 1959.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents may proceed with the execution sale of the petitioners’ properties while their appeal from the judgment on the bail bonds is pending before the Supreme Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition and made the preliminary injunction permanent, halting the execution sale pending the outcome of the appeal. The legal logic is grounded on the rules governing execution and the loss of jurisdiction by the trial court upon perfection of an appeal. Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court, execution before the expiration of the time to appeal is discretionary and requires a special order stating good reasons. More critically, settled jurisprudence holds that after an appeal is perfected and the record on appeal is approved, the trial court loses jurisdiction to issue execution (Vda. de Sy Quia vs. Concepcion, 60 Phil. 186).
In this case, the writ of execution was issued on March 31, 1959, before the appeal was perfected, based on the lower court’s initial view that its judgment was immediately executory and unappealable. However, the lower court itself subsequently reconsidered and allowed the appeal. Since that appeal (G.R. No. L-15584) was perfected and is now pending before the Supreme Court, the trial court has lost jurisdiction to enforce the judgment via execution. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the writ itself, concluding that the interests of justice are best served by suspending the execution sale until the appeal is finally resolved. The injunction is made subject to the outcome of G.R. No. L-15584.