G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988
TOMASITA AQUINO, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO and SPOUSES EUPEMIA R. ROXAS, and FLORO ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, spouses Roxas, filed a collection suit against petitioner Tomasita Aquino in the Court of First Instance of Bataan, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The court granted the attachment upon a P20,000 bond, and the sheriff levied on Aquino’s properties. Aquino filed an answer with a counterclaim, asserting the defense of compensation. The trial court later rendered a judgment in favor of the Roxas spouses. Aquino seasonably filed her notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Subsequently, the Roxas spouses moved for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted. In a later order, the trial court also disapproved Aquino’s notice of appeal for alleged “want of ground to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.”
Aquino filed the instant petition for prohibition and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in granting execution pending appeal and in disapproving her notice of appeal, thereby depriving her of her right to appeal. This Court issued a temporary restraining order against the execution. The respondent judge later issued another order setting aside his disapproval of the notice of appeal and approving the appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the order for execution pending appeal, and made the restraining order permanent. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows execution pending appeal only upon “good reasons to be stated in a special order.” The trial court’s order failed to meet this standard. The judge assumed the levied properties were only worth the P20,000 attachment bond without verifying their actual value, which Aquino claimed were more than sufficient to satisfy the judgment. This lack of factual basis rendered the cited reason for execution—insufficiency of the attached properties—arbitrary. Furthermore, the judge’s additional reason that the appeal was merely dilatory and without merit constituted an overreach; assessing the merit of an appeal from his own decision is the prerogative of the appellate court, not the trial judge. Consequently, the order for execution pending appeal was issued without the requisite good reasons, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The records were ordered remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings on the merits of the appeal.