This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In Flexo Manufacturing Corp. v. Columbus Food, Inc., and Pacific Meat Company, Inc.,[326] both Columbus Food, Inc., (Columbus Food) and Pacific Meat Company, Inc., (Pacific Meat) were found by the trial court therein to be solidarily liable to Flexo Manufacturing, Inc., (Flexo Manufacturing) for the principal obligation of PhP2,957,270.00. The lower court also granted execution pending appeal on the basis of the insolvency of Columbus Food, even if Pacific Meat was not found to be insolvent. Affirming the reversal ordered by the Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that since there was another party who was solidarily liable to pay for the judgment debt, aside from the insolvent Columbus Food, there was no good reason to allow the execution pending appeal: Regarding the state of insolvency of Columbus, the case of Philippine National Bank v. Puno, held: | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| As such exception, the court's discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.[20] Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity.[21] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals cited Flexo Manufacturing Corporation v. Columbus Foods, Incorporated[50] where we held that when there are two or more defendants and one is not insolvent, the insolvency of a co-defendant is not a good reason to justify execution pending appeal if their liability under the judgment is either subsidiary or solidary.[51] However, our ruling in Flexo finds no application here where both respondents are shown to be in imminent danger of insolvency. | |||||
|
2007-10-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It may be noted that the resignations of the previous occupants of the contested positions were accepted by the Board in its Resolution No. 2005-353[26] dated September 7, 2005. However, in accordance with the said Board Resolution, the effective date of the resignations was not September 14, 2005 as set forth in their resignation letters; nor September 7, which is the date of the acceptance of the resignation, but upon the election and proclamation of the winners in the election. Considering that the election was invalidated by the CA, a new election is yet to be conducted. Following the terms of the board resolution, respondents would have the right to continue occupying the contested positions until the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the valid election and proclamation of the winning members of the Board of Trustees. But the order of reinstatement was prematurely issued by the RTC. It was, in fact, an implementation of the CA decision, which at that time was not yet final and executory because of the timely appeal before this Court. Well settled is the rule that there can be no execution until and unless the judgment has become final and executory, i.e., the period of appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken; or, having been taken, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin, in which event, execution shall issue as a matter of right.[27] True, there are exceptions to the above rule such as an execution pending appeal and decisions which are immediately executory notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. The instant case, however, does not fall under any of the exceptions. | |||||
|
2006-11-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The posting of a bond, standing alone and absent the good reasons required under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules, is not enough to allow execution pending appeal. The mere filing of a bond by a successful party is not a good reason to justify execution pending appeal as a combination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution.[26] The bond is only an additional factor for the protection of the defendant's creditor.[27] | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Rules of Court do not enumerate the circumstances which would justify the execution of the judgment or decision pending appeal.[28] However, this Court has held that "good reasons" consist of compelling or superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment or final order. Were the rule otherwise, execution pending appeal may well become a tool of oppression and inequity instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice.[29] | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that only judgments which have become final and executory may be executed.[52] However, discretionary execution of appealed judgments may be allowed under Section 2 (a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure upon concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.[53] The yardstick remains the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer, should the appealed judgment be reversed later.[54] Since the execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence of good reasons is essential.[55] | |||||