G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINERVA C. GENOVEA, in her capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIII, Pasig, ROMULO VICTORIA, in his capacity as Sheriff of Branch XIII, and BETTER BUILDING, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Better Buildings, Inc. (BBI) filed a complaint against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) for the recovery of sums allegedly due for janitorial services, including adjustments for increased labor costs. PLDT, in its Answer, denied liability, asserting that BBI was an independent contractor solely responsible for its employees’ benefits and that the claimed adjustments were not approved. During pre-trial, the respondent Judge terminated proceedings, noting the issue was “payment,” and later admitted BBI’s evidence over PLDT’s objection. When PLDT’s counsel moved for a postponement due to a witness’s illness on the scheduled hearing for its evidence, the motion was denied. The court deemed PLDT to have waived its right to present evidence and rendered a decision in favor of BBI.
PLDT filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration, arguing it never admitted liability and was deprived of its day in court. BBI filed a Motion for Immediate Execution. The respondent Judge denied PLDT’s motion and granted immediate execution pending appeal, citing PLDT’s alleged “clear intention” to delay and stating liability had been “admitted.”

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the orders for execution pending appeal. Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that a judgment becomes executory only after finality. It requires “good reasons,” which must be stated in a special order. The reasons given by the respondent Judge were insufficient and constituted grave abuse of discretion.
The Court found no factual basis for the finding of a “clear intention” to delay, as the single denied postponement was for a valid cause. More critically, the premise that liability was “admitted” was a patent error. PLDT’s Answer expressly denied liability, and the pre-trial order’s generic reference to “payment” as an issue did not constitute an admission. By denying PLDT the opportunity to present its evidence on this contested factual issue, the court deprived it of due process. Execution pending appeal cannot be justified on a grossly mistaken factual conclusion. The Court ordered the case remanded for reception of PLDT’s evidence.