G.R. No. L-7692; April 29, 1955
THE PEOPLE’S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, ETC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch IV) and SOPHIE M. SEIFERT, respondents.

FACTS

In the testate proceedings of E.M. Bachrach, deceased, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order on October 2, 1940, directing the payment of a monthly allowance of P500 to Sophie M. Seifert, a sister of the deceased. The People’s Bank & Trust Company, as administrator, complied until February 1952, when it petitioned to discontinue the allowances, alleging the estate’s cash position was depleted and that continued payments would impair the interests of the widow (a usufructuary), charitable hospitals (legatees), and the estate. Sophie M. Seifert opposed and filed an urgent request for the court to order the administrator to pay the accrued allowances from February 1952 onward. She maintained funds were available, specifically pointing to P33,250 set aside by the administrator for another legatee, Ginda M. Skundina, and tendered a surety bond in the same amount to guarantee the return of the allowances if she were later found not entitled to them. On December 29, 1953, the court approved her bond and ordered the administrator to pay her accrued allowances from February 1952 to December 1953 (totaling P11,500) and to continue the monthly payments from January 1954 onward from the P33,250 fund, with total payments not to exceed that amount. The administrator appealed. On January 26, 1954, Seifert moved for immediate execution of the December 29 order despite the appeal. The People’s Bank objected, but the respondent judge, Ramon R. San Jose, granted the motion on March 26, 1954, citing Seifert’s need for support as a widow. The People’s Bank then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the orders for payment pending appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting immediate execution of the order for payment of monthly allowances pending the administrator’s appeal.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The order for immediate execution was justified for several reasons. First, the monthly allowances were for the necessary support of Sophie M. Seifert, a widow, which constituted a good reason for execution, especially considering her alleged illness. Second, the requirement for stating good reasons in the special order was satisfied as the reasons appeared in the motion for execution and were referenced in the order. Third, and conclusively, Seifert had filed a bond for P33,250 guaranteeing the return of any allowances paid should she later be found not entitled to them, which the Court has held is a good reason for ordering execution pending appeal. The Court addressed the administrator’s concern that Seifert might have already received more than her rightful share as an advance inheritance by noting that this issue would be resolved in the appeal on the merits, and the bond protected the estate from any excess provisional payments. Finally, the Court noted that the underlying order for the P500 monthly allowance dated October 2, 1940, was already final, having been approved by the Supreme Court in December 1947. The pending appeal only concerned the petition to discontinue the allowances; thus, the administrator should not object to the enforcement of a final order by invoking rules on execution pending appeal.