GR L 697; (August, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-697; August 30, 1946
TOMAS MAPUA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and SUBURBAN THEATERS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners (Tomas Mapua, et al.) filed an ejectment action against respondent Suburban Theaters, Inc., in the Municipal Court of Manila concerning the “Cine Apolo” theater building. The ground was that the lease contract had expired and the defendant refused to vacate after demand. The Municipal Court dismissed the action. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to vacate. Before the expiration of the time to appeal, the plaintiffs filed a motion for execution of the judgment based on special reasons. The defendant filed a motion expressing its desire to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution and asked the court to fix the bond amount. The court granted the defendant five days to file a supersedeas bond of P10,000. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The plaintiffs offered to file a counter-bond of P50,000 or P100,000 to answer for any damages from the execution, but this offer was disregarded. The petitioners then filed this certiorari petition, alleging that the order allowing the P10,000 supersedeas bond constituted grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order allowing the defendant to file a supersedeas bond of P10,000 to stay the execution of the judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that under Rule 39, section 2 of the Rules of Court, the respondent court is vested with discretion to stay the execution of a judgment upon the filing of a sufficient supersedeas bond by the appellant before the expiration of the time to appeal. The petitioners’ argument that the stay constituted grave abuse of discretion was based on the alleged merits of their case—that the defendant had no right of possession and no defense. The Court ruled that the merits of the case should not be determined at this stage, in advance of the appeal taken by both parties from the judgment in the principal case. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was found.