### Facts:
The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) initiated an expropriation action to install transmission lines in Carmen, Cebu, covering land owned by Carlos Villamor. Initially, NAPOCOR aimed to expropriate a 3,224 square meter portion but later amended the complaint to cover 8,724 square meters. The RTC of Danao City granted NAPOCOR’s request for immediate possession of the properties after a deposit of the assessed value. A board was formed to assess just compensation, ultimately deciding in favor of Villamor for approximately PHP 3.9 million for the land and PHP 1 million for improvements. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration concerning the compensation, which the trial court addressed. NAPOCOR appealed the decision, but Villamor also filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted. NAPOCOR challenged this execution in the CA, which set aside the trial court’s orders and directed Villamor to repay amounts received due to the execution.
### Issues:
1. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant Villamor’s motion for execution pending appeal after NAPOCOR filed its notice of appeal.
2. Whether there was an urgent need warranting the immediate execution of the trial court’s decision.
3. Whether NAPOCOR’s appeal was dilatory, justifying the execution pending appeal.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied Villamor’s petition, affirming the CA’s annulment of the trial court’s orders for execution pending appeal.
1. **Jurisdiction**: The Court clarified that a trial court retains jurisdiction to address a motion for execution pending appeal as long as not all parties have perfected their appeals. Since only NAPOCOR had appealed at the time of Villamor’s motion, the trial court still had jurisdiction.
2. **Urgent Need for Execution**: The Court found that the trial court did not justify the need for immediate execution pending appeal sufficiently. The reason provided did not meet the criteria of “good reasons” necessitating urgent execution.
3. **Dilatory Appeal**: The Court agreed with the CA that determining whether an appeal is dilatory is within the appellate court’s purview. The trial court’s assessment of the appeal’s merits was premature.
### Doctrine:
The decision reaffirmed the principle that execution pending appeal requires good reasons, compelling enough to outweigh potential damages due to a reversal on appeal. This doctrine emphasizes a cautious approach to granting execution pending appeal, ensuring that such orders are only issued under “extraordinary circumstances”.
### Class Notes:
– **Motion for Execution Pending Appeal**: Execution of a judgment before its finality can be requested by the prevailing party while the trial court still has jurisdiction, under Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Good reasons for such execution must be provided, and the execution is at the court’s discretion.
– **Jurisdiction Post-Appeal**: A trial court retains jurisdiction to resolve motions for execution pending appeal until all parties have perfected their appeals and the time to appeal has elapsed for those who did not appeal.
– **Legal Interest on Compensation**: Upon final determination of just compensation, the prevailing party is entitled to legal interest as damages for delay starting from property taking until payment.
### Historical Background:
This case highlights the intricate balance between the government’s right to expropriate property for public use and the property owner’s rights to fair compensation and due process. It underscores the procedural challenges in expropriation cases, especially regarding compensation and the execution of judgments pending appeal. Through this case, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterates the principles guiding discretionary execution, emphasizing the need for extraordinary circumstances to justify such orders and safeguarding the rights of the property owners amid expropriation proceedings.
Leave a Reply