SERRANO V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Generally, the EXECUTION UPON A FINAL JUDGMENT is a matter of right on the part of the prevailing party. It is the ministerial and mandatory duty of the trial court to enforce its own judgment once it becomes final and executory.

It may happen however, that new facts and circumstances may develop or occur after a judgment had been rendered and while an appeal therefrom is pending; or new matters had developed after the appeal has been dismissed and the appealed judgment had become final and executory, which the parties were not aware of an could not have been aware of prior to or during the trial or during the appeal, as they were not yet in existence at that time.

It is required, however, that the supervening facts and circumstances must either have a direct effect upon the matter already litigated and settled or create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties therein which should render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible, or inequitable or when it becomes imperative in the interest of justice.

CITY OF ILIGAN V. PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT GROUP (REMEDIAL)

The ascertainment of good reasons for EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Normally, its finding will not be disturbed by a reviewing court, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court reads:

SECTION 2. DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION -

(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal - On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.

After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.

Discretionary execution may only issue upon GOOD REASONS to be stated in a special order after due hearing.

There are 3 requisites for the execution of a judgment pending appeal:

1. a motion must be filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
2. there must be good reasons for execution pending appeal; and
3. the good reasons must be stated in a special order.

Execution pending appeal is, of course, the exception to the general rule. Normally, execution cannot be obtained until and unless

1. the judgment has become final and executory;
2. the right of appeal has been renounced or waived;
3. the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or
4. having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin - in which case, execution shall issue as a matter of right.

On the other hand, when the period of appeal has not yet expired, the execution of a judgment should not be allowed except if, in the court's discretion, there are good reasons therefor.

Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances that justify the immediate execution of a judgment, lest it become illusory; or the prevailing party be unable to enjoy it after the lapse of time, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have no recourse but to delay.

The court is convinced that there are good reasons to allow the immediate execution pending appeal. Its adjudication is based on petitioner's own admission hence, any appeal would be unmeritorious and would only serve to delay execution of the final order. The fact that an appeal in this case if taken by petitioner will be a mere dilatory tactic has been declared by the SC as a good and sufficient reason upon which to issue execution.

Indeed, this court has held that a good and sufficient reason upon which to authorize immediate execution is when an appeal is clearly dilatory.

SANTOS V. COMELEC (REMEDIAL, ELECTION)

The petition is impressed with merit. As shown in the records, respondent was guilty of forum-shopping.

FORUM-SHOPPING is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of 2 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

For it to exist, there should be:

1. identity of parties, or at least such as would represent the same interest in both actions;
2. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. identity of the 2 preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

Considering that respondent was indubitably guilty of forum-shopping when he filed SPR No. 37-2002, his petition should have been dismissed outright by the COMELEC. Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case and constitutes direct contempt of court.

A valid exercise of the discretion to allow EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL requires that it should be based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special order." The following constitute "good reasons" and a combination of 2 or more of them will suffuie to grant execution pending appeal:

1. public interest involved or will of the electorate;
2. the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and
3. the length of time that the election contest has been pending.

To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would, in the words of Tobon Uy v. COMELEC, bring back the ghost of the GRAB-THE-PROCLAMATION-PROLONG-THE-PROTEST techniques so often resorted to by devious politicians in the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold to an elective office. This would, as a consequence, lay to waste the will of the electorate.

BANEZ V. BANEZ (REMEDIAL)

ISSUE: Is an action for legal separation one where multiple appeals are allowed?

NO.

As held in Echaus v. CA, EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of solicitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool

In the case, considering the reasons cited by petitioner, we are of the view that there is no superior or urgent circumstance that outweighs the damage, which respondent would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. We note that petitioner did not refute respondent's allegations that she did not intend to use said house, and that she has 2 other houses in the US where she is a permanent resident, while he had none at all.

Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would made execution routinary, the rule rather than the exception.

Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with accounting, in actions for partition of property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final.

This holds true in an action for legal separation. The issues involved in the case will necessarily relate to the same marital relationship between the parties. The effects of legal separation such as entitlement to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership, and custody of the minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They are not separate and distinct matters that may be resolved by the court and become final prior to or apart from the decree of legal separation, Rather, they are mere incidents of legal separation.

Petitioner's alternative prayers that in case we do not dismiss the appeal, we return the records to the trial court and require respondent to file a record on appeal or we return the records to the trial court and retain only the pleadings and orders relevant to the appeal, are untenable. If we grant the first, we are effectively saying that the instant case is one involving multiple appeals, which it is not. If we allow the second, we are effectively applying by analogy Section 6, Rule 44 and Section 6 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, without petitioner showing support therefor in law or jurisprudence.