GR L 51001; (January, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-51001. January 18, 1982.
RICARDO LU and VENUS M. LU, petitioners, vs. NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Numeriano Valeriano filed a complaint for rescission of a contract of sale against the Manila Banking Corporation and petitioners Ricardo and Venus Lu. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint without awarding relief on the Lu spouses’ counterclaim. Valeriano promptly filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, the Lu spouses moved for reconsideration, seeking judgment on their counterclaim for possession of the disputed property and payment of rentals. The trial court granted this motion, rendering an amended judgment ordering Valeriano to vacate the lots and pay monthly compensation. Valeriano did not appeal from this amended judgment. The Lu spouses then moved for immediate execution of the amended judgment pending Valeriano’s appeal of the original decision, citing urgent business needs and offering a bond. The trial court granted the motion. Valeriano challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which set aside the writ of execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting execution pending appeal of the amended judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order for immediate execution. The Court held that the grant of execution pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Good reasons existed to justify execution: the Lu spouses demonstrated an urgent need for the property for their business operations, with evidence showing that lack of space was causing public inconvenience and regulatory threats. The Court found unpersuasive Valeriano’s technical argument that the corporation, not the spouses directly, needed the property, noting the spouses’ controlling 86% ownership made their interest substantial. Furthermore, the Lu spouses filed a substantial bond to answer for any damages. The trial court was also in a position to assess whether Valeriano’s appeal was dilatory. These circumstances collectively constituted “good reasons” under the rules. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court absent a clear showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion.