G.R. No. L-4955 August 1, 1952
JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, ESTEBAN MEDINA, and ENRIQUE SANTAMARIA, petitioners, vs. CITY OF BAGUIO and HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, as Judge of First Instance of the City of Baguio, respondents.

FACTS

The City of Baguio filed three separate actions against petitioners Jose Y. de la Rosa, Esteban Medina, and Enrique Santamaria in the Court of First Instance to collect additional fees charged against theater owners and operators under Ordinance No. 83 and Ordinance No. 118. After a joint trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the City, ordering each petitioner to pay specific sums (De la Rosa: P12,643.57; Medina: P21,148.66; Santamaria: P11,512.58) and to pay all sums collected under the ordinances from January 1951 onward. Petitioners gave notice of their intention to appeal and filed an appeal bond. While the record on appeal was pending approval, the City filed a petition for immediate execution of the judgment under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners objected. On July 7, 1951, the court denied the execution petition but required petitioners to file within five days a bond to guarantee payment of the judgment amounts, warning that failure to do so would result in immediate issuance of the writ of execution. Petitioners contended this order exceeded jurisdiction and constituted grave abuse of discretion, leading them to file this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded his jurisdiction in requiring the petitioners to file a supersedeas bond to guarantee payment of the judgment amounts as a condition to stay execution pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion. The Court explained that under Section 2, Rule 39, execution may issue before the expiration of the time to appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order. The “good reasons” were present in the record: the City’s petition for execution revealed petitioners’ insincerity, as they had led the court to believe they had deposited the claimed amounts in a bank, but verification showed their actual deposits were minimal (De la Rosa: P138.84; Medina: none; Santamaria: P117.33 in his name and P2,762.64 jointly with his wife) compared to the substantial judgments against them. These facts, referenced in the court’s order, constituted sufficient “good reasons” for the discretionary grant of execution or the requirement of a supersedeas bond. The power to grant or deny execution, and to stay it by requiring a supersedeas bond, is discretionary with the trial court, and appellate courts will not interfere absent a showing of abuse. Under the circumstances, no such abuse was found.