G.R. No. L-45898; April 10, 1939
JOVITA JOVEN, petitioner, vs. MARCELO T. BONCAN, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents.

FACTS

In a civil case, the trial court rendered judgment against petitioner Jovita Joven. She filed a bill of exceptions to appeal. The defendants moved for execution of the judgment pending appeal. The trial court granted the motion, ordering execution unless Joven posted a bond. The court later ordered the motion for execution and the order granting it to be incorporated into the bill of exceptions. Joven filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals to nullify the execution order. Initially, the Court of Appeals granted the writ, but upon reconsideration, it dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lusk vs. Stevens. Joven elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly ordered the execution of judgment pending appeal in accordance with Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolution dismissing the petition. Under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, two requirements must be met for execution pending appeal: (1) a special order of the court, and (2) special reasons stated in the bill of exceptions. Both requirements were satisfied. The trial judge issued the order for execution “in view of all the circumstances,” and the motion for execution (containing the special reasons) and the order itself were incorporated into the bill of exceptions. The Court found it unnecessary to elaborate on its Lusk vs. Stevens ruling, as the special reasons for execution appeared in the bill of exceptions as required by law.

AI Generated by Armztrong.