B.
XII.
A.
Judgment was rendered against defendant
Jaypee in an action for unlawful detainer. The
judgment ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay
attorney's fees in favor of Bart, the plaintiff.
To prevent the immediate execution of the
judgment, would you advise the posting of
a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee?
Explain your answer briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A)
No, as counsel for Jaypee I would not advise
the posting of a supersedeas bond.
Under the R70, a supersedeas bond is
necessary to prevent immediate execution only if
the judgment awarded rents, damages, and costs.
Here the judgment only ordered Jaypee to
vacate and to pay attorney’s fees. A supersedeas
bond is not required to cover attorney’s fees. [Once
v. Gonzalez, 31 March 1977]. Hence the posting of
a supersedeas bond is not required.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was
issued on September 20, 2017 by the RTC against
defendant Jeff enjoining him from entering the land
of Regan, the plaintiff.
On October 9, 2017, upon application of
Regan, the trial court, allegedly in the interest of
justice, extended the TRO for another 20 days based
on the same ground for which the TRO was issued.
On October 15, 2017, Jeff entered the land
subject of the TRO.
May Jeff be liable for contempt of court?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B)
No, Jeff may not be liable for contempt.
Under the Rule on Preliminary Injunction, a
TRO is effective only for a period of 20 days from
service on the person sought to be enjoined. It is
deemed automatically vacated if the application for
preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved
within the said period and no court shall have the
authority to extend or renew the TRO on the same
ground for which it was issued. [S5 R58]
Here the extension of the TRO by the RTC
was invalid since it was for the same ground for
which the TRO was issued. Hence the TRO was
deemed automatically vacated and thus Jeff may not
be liable for contempt for ignoring it.