Preliminary-injunctyion_2_apachecha V Rovira.docx

Preliminary Injunction Case #2 Smilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero v. HON. Valerio V. Rovira, Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia and Pacifico Lumauag (G.R. No. L-28454. May 18, 1978.)

DOCTRINE: Execution issued before the expiration of the time to appeal may be stayed upon the approval by the court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the appellant, conditioned upon the performance of the judgement or order appealed from in case it may be affirmed wholly or in part. The supersedeas bond may be proceeded against on motion before the trial court, with notice to the surety, after the case is remanded to it by the appellate court. The bond referred to in Sec 9, Rule 58 in connection with Sec 20 of Rule 57 refers to a claim for damages resulting from an improper preliminary injunction which requires the filing of an application for damages before the entry of final judgement and a hearing thereon with notice to the surety before it can be proceeded against. It is not identical with the supersedeas bond. Where a claim b y one litigant that the parties have already amicably settled their case is denied by the other party, the issue becomes factual issue which should be threshed out in the trial court. Before execution may be issued against a person who files a supersedeads b ond, the exact amount of the liability of the judgement debtor, which may not necessarily be the full amount of the bond filed, must be clarified in the lower court.

FACTS: 1. In a previous civil case, a favorable judgement was granted to Petitioners for failure of Respondents, Agos and Balajadia to submit the printed record on appeal on time. 2. Pending appeal, respondents filed a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of a judgement in favor of petitioner. 3. After the appeal was dismissed, petitioners moved to enforce the supersedeas bond against surety, respondent Pacifico Lumauag, when the execution of their favorable judgement remained unsatisfied. 4. Respondent judge denied the motion and sustained the contention of Lumauag that under Sec 9 of Rule 58 in connection with Sec 20 of Rule 57, in order that a surety may be bound under the bond for damages, the application for damages must be filed before the entry of final judgement and there must be a hearing and notice to the surety. 5. Hence, this present petition for Certiorari, assailing the order of respondent judge for denying petitioner’s prayer that respondent Pacifico Lumauag be made to pay, as surety, on the supersedeas bond Petitioners’ Argument: The matter on hand is not a claim for damages in a case of preliminary injunction governed by Rule 58, but a motion to enforce the supersedeas bond filed by Lumauag and two others to secure the stay of the immediate execution of a judgement in favor of the petitioners, which is specifically governed by Sec 3 Rule 39. Respondents’ Argument: The motion should have been file before final judgement, according to Sec 9, Rule 58.

CFI –Denied Petitioners motion adopting Respondent’s contention that the matter is based on Sec 9, Rule 58. IAC – Not mentioned. ISSUE: (a) WON there was a need to have filed the motion before the final judgement. (NO) RULING: In the case at hand, there was no need to file the motion before final judgement. Petitioners are correct that what they seek is not damages resulting from an improper preliminary injunction. Rather, they are after the execution of a judgement in their favor which was stayhed on the strength of the supersedeas bond filed by Lumauag. Anent Lumauag’s contention that the parties have reached an amicable settlement, this was not raised in the lower courts. It was also denied by the petitioners which has become a factual issue, which should be threshed out in the lower courts. The court also notes, what needs to be clarified before the execution may issue against Lumauag is the exact amount of the liability of the respondents, which does not m=seem to be necessarily the full amount of the supersedeas bond of P10,000. Petition is granted and respondent judge to proceed with petitioner’s motion of execution of judgement.