G.R. No. L-39861 March 17, 1986
RICARDO C. SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CIRIACO B. MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo C. Silverio filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against respondent Ciriaco B. Mendoza in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Silverio, ordering Mendoza to pay various sums. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Simultaneously, the trial court granted Silverio’s motion for execution pending appeal, issuing a writ of partial execution covering the principal amount and attorney’s fees. Mendoza then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the order granting execution pending appeal. The appellate court issued a preliminary injunction against the execution. Concurrently, Mendoza perfected his appeal of the entire trial court judgment. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed Mendoza’s certiorari petition. Subsequently, Silverio filed a motion in the appellate court to dismiss Mendoza’s main appeal or to strike out his appellant’s brief, arguing that the dismissal of the certiorari case foreclosed the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied Silverio’s motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals’ prior dismissal of the special civil action for certiorari, which challenged the order for execution pending appeal, precludes the appellant from pursuing his ordinary appeal on the merits of the entire judgment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and dismissed Silverio’s petition. The Court ruled that the dismissal of the certiorari case, which was a separate special civil action questioning only the interlocutory order for execution pending appeal, does not constitute res judicata on the merits of the main case. An appeal and a petition for certiorari are distinct remedies with different objectives. The certiorari proceeding addressed only the propriety of the execution pending appeal, not the correctness of the trial court’s judgment on the substantive rights of the parties. The Rules of Court explicitly contemplate the scenario where a judgment executed pending appeal is later reversed, providing for restitution. Therefore, a party against whom execution has been issued is not barred from appealing the main judgment. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the appeal to continue, as the prior certiorari dismissal did not resolve the merits of the case. The appellate court retains full authority to review the entire judgment on appeal. This ruling ensures that a litigant is not deprived of the right to a full review of the judgment on its merits merely for having separately challenged an ancillary order for immediate execution.