This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory, or the prevailing party after the lapse of time be unable to enjoy it, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have apparently no cause but to delay. Such reasons must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.[36] Execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only a final judgment may be executed. Thus, the existence of "good reasons" is essential for it is what confers discretionary power on a court to issue a writ of execution pending appeal.[37] | |||||
|
2006-11-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As a discretionary execution, execution pending appeal is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal.[15] Good reasons, | |||||
|
2006-11-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court ruled that an appeal from its 19 September 2000 Order is only a ploy to delay the proceedings of the case. However, the authority to determine whether an appeal is dilatory lies with the appellate court.[20] The trial court's assumption that the appeal is dilatory prematurely judges the merits of the main case on appeal.[21] Thus:Well-settled is the rule that it is not for the trial court to determine the merit of a decision it rendered as this is the role of the appellate Court. Hence, it is not within the competence of the trial court, in resolving the motion for execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and to rely on the same as the basis for finding good reason to grant the motion.[22] | |||||