GR L 47836; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47836 ; April 30, 1941
ANICETO ALEJANDRO, recurrente, vs. DIEGO LOCSIN, como Juez de Primera Instancia de Rizal, y PROTASIO OTEYSA.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 6739 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Protasio Oteysa claimed a balance of P86 from a P257 debt owed by Aniceto Alejandro. The court, on October 13, 1937, rendered judgment in favor of Oteysa, condemning Alejandro to pay P86 plus costs. Alejandro was declared in default, and Oteysa presented his evidence in Alejandro’s absence. Alejandro appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment in CA- G.R. No. 3148 , promulgated on May 23, 1940. Alejandro’s motion for reconsideration and another motion under Article 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure were denied. The judgment became final and the record was remanded for execution.
Meanwhile, in another pending case, Civil Case No. 6684, where Oteysa was plaintiff against Eugenio Cristi (later substituted by his judicial administrator Mario Cristi), Alejandro intervened as a third-party claimant. On April 25, 1940, while the appeal in Civil Case No. 6739 was pending, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6684 declaring Mario Cristi the owner of the disputed land and condemning Alejandro to pay Oteysa P40, which he still owed, with costs against Alejandro.
To prevent the execution of the final Court of Appeals judgment in Civil Case No. 6739, Alejandro filed a motion on July 9, 1940, seeking suspension of execution on the ground that the decision in Civil Case No. 6684 declared he had not received and did not owe Oteysa the P257, of which the P86 was a part. This motion was denied by order of August 15, 1940. Alejandro then presented a record on appeal and bond to perfect an appeal against the August 15 order. The court, by order of September 14, 1940, disapproved the record on appeal and bond on the ground that the August 15 order was unappealable. This disapproval prompted the filing of the present mandamus petition to compel approval of the record on appeal, with a preliminary injunction issued against the execution of the Court of Appeals judgment.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of September 14, 1940, disapproving the record on appeal and bond, thereby denying Alejandro’s appeal from the August 15, 1940 order which denied his motion to suspend execution.
2. Whether the trial court’s August 15, 1940 order denying the suspension of execution was illegal or issued with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus and lifted the preliminary injunction.
1. On the legality of the August 15, 1940 order denying suspension of execution: The Court held that the order was legal and not issued with grave abuse of discretion. Alejandro’s defense in his motion to suspend execution—that the contract with Oteysa was a simulated sale with pacto de retro, that the P257 represented usurious interest, and that the true agreement was a mortgage—was the same defense he had already raised and which had been rejected in Civil Case No. 6739, first by the trial court and finally by the Court of Appeals. The facts alleged were not new or supervening. The subsequent decision in Civil Case No. 6684, even if seemingly contradictory, did not constitute a legal obstacle to the execution of the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. 6739. The trial court’s duty was to execute the final judgment of the appellate court. From an equity standpoint, Alejandro’s claim was also unfounded, as he had benefited from the loan for years and, by his own admission, had sold the property in question to another while it was allegedly still mortgaged to Oteysa.
2. On the appealability of the August 15, 1940 order and the disapproval of the record on appeal: The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the August 15, 1940 order was an interlocutory order and, under the circumstances, was not appealable. Allowing an appeal from such an order would result in the case never reaching finality. Therefore, the trial court correctly disapproved the record on appeal and bond. Costs were imposed on the petitioner, Alejandro.