PEDRO REBADULLA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EMILIO BENITEZ, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Rebadulla versus Benitez

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition filed by Pedro Rebadulla and his fellow bondsmen against Judge Emilio Benitez of the Court of First Instance of Samar and the provincial sheriffs of that province. The petitioners had posted bail bonds for the provisional liberty of accused persons in a robbery in band case; when the accused failed to appear, the trial court forfeited the bonds and later rendered judgment against the bondsmen for the amounts thereof, ordering the judgment immediately executed. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to stop the sheriffs from selling their properties on execution while their appeal from that judgment is still pending. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when a trial court may issue a writ of execution and when it loses that power once an appeal is perfected.

Procedural History

In the trial court, the judge ordered the forfeiture of the bonds after the accused failed to appear at the trial set for August 22, 1958, and gave the bondsmen thirty days to produce the accused and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them. On March 20, 1959, the court rendered judgment against the bondsmen for the amounts of their respective bonds, the judgment to be immediately executed. The petitioners received a copy through counsel on April 11, 1959, and four days later filed a motion to set the judgment aside. They also filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which the lower court denied, holding that the order of forfeiture had already become final and executory and that the judgment on the bonds was likewise final and unappealable. Upon the petitioners' motion, which the provincial fiscal did not oppose, the lower court reconsidered and gave due course to the appeal, which was docketed in the Supreme Court and remained pending. In the meantime, despite the pendency of that appeal, a provincial sheriff issued a notice of public auction sale of the properties given as bail, pursuant to a writ of execution issued on March 31, 1959. The petitioners then filed this special civil action of prohibition directly in the Supreme Court. The Court gave due course to the petition, and upon the filing of a bond of 300 pesos, issued a preliminary injunction.

Facts

In Criminal Case Number 2909 of the Court of First Instance of Samar, the accused were charged with robbery in band. The petitioners filed bail bonds in the aggregate amount of 40,000 pesos for the provisional liberty of those accused.

The accused failed to appear at the trial set for August 22, 1958. On that same day, the respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest against them and ordered the forfeiture of their bonds, giving the bondsmen thirty days within which to produce the accused and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of the bonds. On March 20, 1959, not satisfied with the explanation given, the court rendered judgment against the bondsmen for the amount of their respective bonds, the judgment to be immediately executed.

The bondsmen moved to set aside the judgment, alleging among other things that only eight of the nineteen bondsmen had been notified to produce their principals, that the accused had in fact been arrested by order of the court within the thirty-day period, and that the judgment should not be immediately executory because the law allows a period for appeal. The court denied the motion and the notice of appeal, but later reconsidered and gave due course to the appeal. Despite the pendency of that appeal, the sheriff proceeded to schedule the auction sale of the bail properties under the writ of execution, prompting this petition for prohibition.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge and the provincial sheriffs acted in excess of their authority and jurisdiction in proceeding with the sale on execution of the petitioners' properties given as bail while the petitioners' appeal from the judgment on the bonds was still pending.
• Whether or not the sale on execution of the petitioners' properties should be held in abeyance until after the appeal shall have been finally disposed of.

Applicable Provisions

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

Execution may issue in the discretion of the court before the expiration of the time to appeal upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.

This provision defines the trial court's power to order execution before the time to appeal expires, which the Court weighs against the effect of a perfected appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court noted that execution may issue in the discretion of the court before the expiration of the time to appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order, but that after the appeal is perfected, or after the record on appeal is approved, the trial court loses jurisdiction to issue execution. In this case, the writ of execution was issued before the appeal was perfected, apparently because the judgment stated that it shall be immediately executed and on the theory that it was final and unappealable. The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the writ of execution.

On the second issue, the Court held that, considering that the lower court had reconsidered its stand and finally allowed the petitioners' appeal, which was then pending decision before the Supreme Court, the interest of justice would be better served if the sale on execution of the petitioners' properties given as bail were simply held in abeyance until after the appeal shall have been finally disposed of.

Doctrine

A trial court may, in its discretion, issue a writ of execution before the expiration of the time to appeal, but only upon good reasons stated in a special order. Once the appeal is perfected, or once the record on appeal is approved, the trial court loses jurisdiction to issue execution. Where the trial court has given due course to an appeal and that appeal is pending, the interest of justice calls for holding in abeyance any sale on execution of properties given as bail until the appeal is finally resolved.

Disposition

The petition for prohibition was granted, and the preliminary injunction was made permanent, subject to whatever may be the decision of the Court in the pending appeal, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: after the appeal is perfected, or after the record on appeal is approved, the trial court loses jurisdiction to issue execution. Examiners use this case to test the rule on execution pending appeal and the point at which the trial court's jurisdiction over execution ends.