G.R. No. L-26166 July 30, 1966
Roque Javellana, petitioner, vs. Judge Jose Querubin, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The respondent Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered a decision against petitioner Roque Javellana in Civil Case No. 7350. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. Before the appeal was perfected, the prevailing private respondent moved for execution pending appeal. The lower court granted the motion by an order dated May 28, 1966, directing the issuance of a writ of execution on the ground that the repeated continuances asked and obtained by defendant Javellana showed he did not intend to terminate the case expeditiously. Javellana’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 9, 1966. He then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging that the inferred intent to delay does not justify immediate execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal based on a finding that the appeal was taken for purposes of delay, inferred from petitioner’s repeated requests for continuances.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that a finding that an appeal is taken for purposes of delay is a good and sufficient reason for issuing execution pending appeal. While intent to delay is not susceptible to direct proof, it can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the repeated continuances sought by the petitioner as enumerated in the contested order. The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings invoked by the petitioner (Ledesma v. Judge Teodoro and City of Bacolod v. Judge Enriquez) on factual grounds, noting that here the finding of dilatory intent was amply supported. Furthermore, certiorari is an extraordinary remedy unavailable when another adequate remedy exists. Petitioner could have stayed execution by tendering a supersedeas bond under Rule 39, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, but failed to do so. Therefore, he is not entitled to certiorari.