G.R. No. L-27160. May 30, 1974.
JOSE QUAN, petitioner, vs. THE SHERIFF, City of Manila, Judge ALBERTO FRANCISCO, Court of First Instance, Manila, and FONG LOONG, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Fong Loong, the lessee of a house at 644 Misericordia St., Manila, filed an unlawful detainer suit in the City Court against petitioner Jose Quan, his sublessee of the basement floor. The complaint alleged Quan’s refusal to pay an increased rental and to vacate after lease termination. The City Court ruled for Fong Loong, ordering Quan to vacate the premises identified as “644-A Misericordia Street” and to pay accrued rentals and attorney’s fees. Quan appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
In the CFI, Fong Loong moved for execution of the City Court’s judgment, arguing Quan failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution. Quan opposed, claiming he had arranged for a bond. The CFI, presided by respondent Judge Francisco, initially held the motion in abeyance. Fong Loong later filed a compliance, reiterating the motion and submitting proof of service. After a hearing where Quan did not appear, the CFI granted execution, finding the filing of a supersedeas bond mandatory and noting Quan’s bond, filed with the CFI records, had not been formally presented or approved by the court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent CFI judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the writ of execution. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural requirements for staying execution in ejectment appeals. Under the then-governing Rules of Court (Rule 72, Section 8), a judgment for the plaintiff in an ejectment case is immediately executory unless the defendant perfects an appeal and files a supersedeas bond with the court of origin (the City Court) within the reglementary period. The bond must be approved by that court. Perfection of the appeal alone does not stay execution; the bond is a statutory condition precedent.
The Court found Quan failed to comply with this mandatory rule. He did not file the supersedeas bond with the City Court before the case was elevated. His subsequent filing of a bond with the CFI records, without a formal motion for its approval and without court approval, did not cure the defect. The CFI correctly held that the right to execution accrued upon Quan’s failure to file the proper bond with the City Court. The Court also rejected Quan’s ancillary claim that the writ was overly broad, noting the premises described (“644-A”) was consistently understood by the parties to refer to the basement floor he occupied. Thus, the respondent judge acted within legal bounds, and no grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari existed.