0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
103 vues2 pages
This case digest summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a writ of execution pending appeal. [1] The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the complaint and finding the real estate mortgage void. [2] The petitioners appealed but the respondents sought a writ of execution, claiming the petitioners were insolvent. [3] The trial court approved the writ, and the Court of Appeals upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
This case digest summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a writ of execution pending appeal. [1] The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the complaint and finding the real estate mortgage void. [2] The petitioners appealed but the respondents sought a writ of execution, claiming the petitioners were insolvent. [3] The trial court approved the writ, and the Court of Appeals upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
This case digest summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a writ of execution pending appeal. [1] The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing the complaint and finding the real estate mortgage void. [2] The petitioners appealed but the respondents sought a writ of execution, claiming the petitioners were insolvent. [3] The trial court approved the writ, and the Court of Appeals upheld this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
The case at bar is an appeal of the decision of the CA to uphold
the trial court’s issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal.
The trial court, in a case filed by the petitioners against
respondents, decided in favor of the respondents, dismissing the complaint and rendering the real estate mortgage void, and asking the petitioners to pay respondents unpaid rentals, damages, and other costs.
The petitioner filed with the court a notice of appeal, appeal
bond and record of appeal. The respondents then questioned the record saying that it was incomplete and defective. The trial court then ordered the appeal to be first perfected. While waiting for the appeal to be perfected, the respondents moved for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, based on the alleged insolvency of the petitioners.
The trial court approved this and it issued a writ of execution
prior appeal. This was appealed by the petitioners with the CA under petition for certiorari. The CA on its original decision decided in favor of petitioners and issued also a writ of preliminary injunction. On a motion for reconsideration though by the respondents, the CA reversed its decision and upheld the writ issued by the trial court.
This was questioned by the petitioners, saying that the
respondents didn’t raise any new issue in its motion for the CA to have substantive reason to reverse its decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the order of the trial court to execute its decision pending appeal?
HELD:
The CA didn’t erred in upholding the writ of execution pending
appeal of the trial court.
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, it has been
established that it is discretionary upon the court if it will grant or deny a motion and the appellate courts will not interfere to modify, control or inquire upon such discretion unless there is abuse thereof.
In the case at bar, respondents were able to show records and
even the testimonies of the petitioners themselves to prove their claims. The trial court acknowledged this and found it to be substantial, moving it to use its power to grant the respondent’s motion. The CA affirmed this in its disputed resolution.
The contention of the petitioners about the lack of substantial
reason for the CA to reverse its original decision is bereft of merit. Under the Revised Rules of Court, courts have the power to amend and control its orders and processes to make them conform to law and justice. Courts have the right to reverse themselves especially when it is their honest opinion that they have committed an error or mistake in their judgment.
Furthermore, considering the facts are binding since in appeals
through Rule 45 the CA’s decision is conclusive with regard to facts and cannot be disturbed by the SC, the SC finds that there has been no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SC in upholding the writ of execution. Also, the insolvency of petitioner doesn’t need to be proven directly, but it could be inferred through the circumstances shown and raised.
Donald E. Blanchard, JR., Patricia S. Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, An Illinois Corporation, 931 F.2d 789, 11th Cir. (1991)