Universal Far East Corp v. CA

FACTS: This case is about an execution pending appeal under the Interim Rules and the Judiciary Reorganization
Law.
The lower court rendered a decision dated December 28, 1982, ordering Emilio Ching to pay Universal Far East
Corporation P162,978.12 plus 14% interest per annum from November, 1977 and P10,000 as attorney's fees. The
corporation received a copy of the decision on January 14, 1983. Three days later, or on January 17, it filed a motion for
execution pending appeal on the ground that Ching was in solvent and his appeal would be dilatory. It offered to post a
bond.
The motion was served on Ching on January 17. It was set for hearing on January 19, 1983 but it was not then heard
because on that date the Presiding Judge and other Judges were in conference with the Chief Justice regarding the
judiciary revamp. It was reset for March 4, 1983. Ching asked for 15 days extension from January 19 to file his
opposition. In the meantime, Ching, who received a copy of the decision on January 12, 1983, filed his notice of appeal
on January 27 or on the 15th day. He mailed his opposition on February 3, 1983. On March 4, the motion was heard.
Ching was given five days to file a rejoinder to the corporation's reply but he did not file any rejoinder.
Instead, he filed on March 23 a manifestation wherein he contended that under Section 9, Rule 41 of the rules of Court the
trial court had no more jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal because his appeal had long been perfected. The
trial court granted the execution pending appeal on May 30, 1983, or more than four months after Ching's appeal was
perfected, on the ground of Ching's insolvency. It required the corporation to post a bond in the sum of P280,866.72. The
trial court ordered execution in its order of June 4, 1983. Acting on Ching's notice of appeal dated January 27, 1983, the
trial court in its order of June 10, 1983 directed the elevation of the record to the Intermediate Appellate Court. The record
was actually elevated on August 30, 1983.
Ching assailed the execution pending appeal in a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed on June 13, 1983
in the Appellate Court, which in a decision dated July 8, 1983, set aside the order of execution on the ground that, having
been issued after the perfection of the appeal, the trial court had no more jurisdiction over the case. The corporation
appealed to this Court.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the order of execution pending appeal even after the reglementary
fifteen-day period for appeal.
RULING: We hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the order of execution pending appeal because the motion
for execution was filed before Ching had perfected his appeal and it was resolved before the trial court which on Ching's
appeal and elevated the record to the Appellate Court. The execution pending appeal has to be a part of the records to be
elevated to the Appellate Court.Said motion could not have been dispatched by the trial court within the reglementary
fifteen-day period for appeal because respondent Ching himself asked for an extension of fifteen days to file his
opposition. As already noted, he filed his opposition on February 3, 1984 after the perfection of his appeal. He did not
question the trial court's jurisdiction
It may be argued that the trial court should dispose of the motion for execution within the reglementary fifteen-day period.
Such a rule would be difficult, if not impossible, to follow. It would not be pragmatic and expedient and could cause
injustice. Hurried justice is not always authentic justice.The motion for execution has to be set for hearing. The judgment
debtor has to be heard. The good reasons for execution pending appeal have to be scrutinized. These things cannot be
done within the short period of fifteen days. The trial court may be confronted with other matters more pressing that
would demand its immediate attention.
The revamp law and its Interim Rules do not require that the motion for execution be resolved within the fifteen-day
period. It should be noted that under the Rules of Court, where appeal is by record on appeal, the trial court loses
jurisdiction upon approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond (Sec. 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court). That may take
place long after the expiration of the thirty-day reglementary period for appeal.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Appellate Court is reversed and set aside. The execution pending appeal is affirmed.

Universal Far East Corp v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Far East Corp v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Far East Corp v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS: This case is about an execution pending appeal under the Interim Rules and the Judiciary Reorganization

You might also like