This is a petition for certiorari to  annul an  order issued by the respondent  judge requiring the petitioner to  file a bond of P720 to answer for damages  and back rentals of certain premises belonging to the respondent Camila de Liza and  occupied by the petitioner.

Said  order  was  entered in civil case No. 57647 of  the Court of First Instance  of  Manila in an unlawful detainer case appealed thereto from the municipal court in which the herein respondent Camila de Liza was  the plaintiff and the herein  petitioner  Purificacion C. Pascua,  the  defendant. In the municipal court, judgment was entered  ordering the defendant  to vacate the  premises in question and to pay to the plaintiff P200 a month as rent from June 1, 1940, until she vacates the said  premises.  The  plaintiff,  on the other hand, was  ordered to pay to the defendant the  sum of P350 for the improvements introduced by her in said premises, which sum should  be deducted from the  accrued rentals. The  defendant appealed from said judgment to the Court of First Instance but failed and  refused to file the special bond required by section 8 of rule 72 to cover  damages and the back rentals, claiming that there was no need for her to do so in view of her approved counterclaim of ?350 against the plaintiff.  Thereupon the plaintiff moved the respondent judge to issue a writ of execution, and said judge issued the order herein  complained of.

The only question to decide is  whether or not the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction  in requiring the petitioner to  file  the special bond above  referred to not-withstanding the existence  of a counterjudgment against the respondent Camila de Liza in the  sum of P350.

We find that the order of the respondent judge is  in accordance with section 8 of rule 72, which provides in part as follows:

"Sec. 8. Immediate execution of judgment.   How to stay same If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond  approved by the  justice of the  peace or municipal court and executed to the plaintiff  to enter the action in the Court of First Instance,  and to pay the rents, damages, and costs down to the time of the final judgment in the action, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he pays to the plaintiff or to the Court of First Instance the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court to exist, or, in the absence of a contract, he pays to the plaintiff or into the court, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, the reasonable value of the use and occupation  of the premises for the preceding month at the rate  determined by the judgment.  *  *   *"

The respondent judge held that the counterclaim of P350 awarded  to the defendant cannot serve the purpose of the bond required by said section, the object of which is to secure the plaintiff against any damages that the defendant may cause to plaintiff's property during  the  pendency of the appeal.   In so holding, the respondent judge committed no abuse of discretion, in our opinion.  Under the law, it is not enough that the defendant deposit in  court  the monthly rents as they fall due; she is  also required to file a bond to secure the payment of the rents due, damages, and costs.  These are not adequately covered by defendant's counterclaim of P350.  The  order of the respondent judge is also sanctioned by our decision in Igama and Reyes vs. Soria and Nepomuceno, 42 Phil., 11.

The order complained of is affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

Abad Santos, Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.