Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Vda de Sayman v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to overturn the Court of Appeals decision annulling the trial court's writ of execution. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its supervisory power to prevent premature execution of a judgment still subject to appeal. A writ of execution should not issue while a petition for relief is pending, as the judgment may still be modified or reversed on appeal. Upholding the Court of Appeals decision preserves the possibility of appeal and prevents the appeal from becoming meaningless if execution had already occurred and could not be reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vda de Sayman v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    107 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to overturn the Court of Appeals decision annulling the trial court's writ of execution. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its supervisory power to prevent premature execution of a judgment still subject to appeal. A writ of execution should not issue while a petition for relief is pending, as the judgment may still be modified or reversed on appeal. Upholding the Court of Appeals decision preserves the possibility of appeal and prevents the appeal from becoming meaningless if execution had already occurred and could not be reversed.

    Original Description:

    Vda De Sayman v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to overturn the Court of Appeals decision annulling the trial court's writ of execution. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its supervisory power to prevent premature execution of a judgment still subject to appeal. A writ of execution should not issue while a petition for relief is pending, as the judgment may still be modified or reversed on appeal. Upholding the Court of Appeals decision preserves the possibility of appeal and prevents the appeal from becoming meaningless if execution had already occurred and could not be reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views2 pages

    Vda de Sayman v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Nina
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to overturn the Court of Appeals decision annulling the trial court's writ of execution. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its supervisory power to prevent premature execution of a judgment still subject to appeal. A writ of execution should not issue while a petition for relief is pending, as the judgment may still be modified or reversed on appeal. Upholding the Court of Appeals decision preserves the possibility of appeal and prevents the appeal from becoming meaningless if execution had already occurred and could not be reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    FIRST DIVISION
    G.R. No. L-25596 April 28, 1983
    CLARA E. VDA. DE SAYMAN, ANACORITA S. DE
    MACAYRA, OSIAS E. SAYMAN, Heirs of the Late
    IGNACIO SAYMAN, FAUSTINA VDA. DE SAYMAN, As
    Guardian Ad Litim of the Minor Illegitimate
    Children of the Late DEMOCRITO SAYMAN,
    Namely,
    IMELDA,
    CORAZON
    RUBEN,
    and
    DEMOCRITO JR., All Surnamed, SAYMAN, ADELE
    CRISOLOGO, CONSEJO VDA. DE MANGOB, Mother
    of the Late POTENCIANO VDA. DE ODO, PRESCILLA
    ODO DE MASINADING, ANITA, JACINTO, ENRIQUITO
    and
    CONCEPCION,
    All
    Surnamed
    CASTRO,
    petitioners,
    vs.
    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS A. GO
    THONG & CO., INC., respondents.
    Lucinio Sayman for petitioners.
    Quisumbing & Quisumbing Law Offices for respondents.
    RESOLUTION
    VASQUEZ, J.:
    This case is intimately related with G. R. Nos. L-29479
    and
    L-29716 which involve the same parties and which arose

    from the same two cases filed in the trial court between
    the same parties herein. Our decision in which was
    promulgated on February 21, 1983.
    The subject-matter of the instant proceeding is the writ
    of execution issued by the trial court to enforce its
    judgment after the same became final and executory,
    but during the pendency of a petition for relief from the
    same. The said order of execution was brought to the
    respondent Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari.
    In a decision of said court promulgated on December
    14, 1965, the writ of execution issued by the trial court
    was annulled and set aside. The said decision of the
    Court of Appeals is the subject of the petition for
    certiorari in the instant proceeding.
    The petitioners assail the decision of the respondent
    Court of Appeals on three (3) principal grounds, namely,
    (1) the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals
    should not have been entertained inasmuch as the
    private respondent did not file a motion for
    reconsideration of the order of execution in the trial
    court; (2) the trial judge did not commit a grave abuse
    of discretion in authorizing the execution of its
    judgment; and (3) the Court of Appeals erred in holding
    that the mere filing of the petition for relief will justify
    the stay of execution of the judgment complained of.
    It is true that as a general rule, a motion for
    reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in
    order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the
    error that it may have committed. The said
    requirements is not absolute and may be dispensed with
    in instances where the filing of a motion for
    reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as
    when the motion for reconsideration would raise the
    same point stated in the motion (Fortitch Cildran vs.
    Cildran, 19 SCRA 502), or where the error is patent for
    the order is void (Iligan Electric Light Company vs.
    Public Service Commission 10 SCRA 46; Matute vs.

    Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 768; Locsin vs. Limaco, 26


    SCRA 816); or where the relief is extremely urgent, as in
    cases where execution had already been ordered (Suco
    vs. Vda de Leary, 12 SCRA 326); or where the issue
    raised is one purely of law (Central Bank vs Cloribel 44
    SCRA 307).
    In the case at bar, the question of whether a writ of
    execution may issue under the circumstances obtaining
    is purely one of law, and the need for urgent relief
    therefrom is patent from the fact that the trial court had
    already issued a writ for the execution of the judgment
    complained of in the petition for relief. Moreover, it is
    not completely accurate to claim that the trial court was
    deprived of a chance to correct its error by the failure to
    file a motion for the reconsideration of the questioned
    order. As pointed out by the private respondent, it filed
    a motion for the reconsideration of the first order of
    execution dated April 8, 1965. A second opportunity to
    consider the objection of the private respondent to the
    writ of execution was granted by the trial court in
    connection with the petition for relief on May 30, 1965
    in which the private respondent had prayed for a stay of
    the execution of judgment.
    The second and third contentions of the petitioners boil
    down to the question of whether a writ of execution may
    be issued despite the pendency of a petition for relief
    against the judgment sought to be enforced. It is the
    rule that when a petition for relief is filed, the court may
    issue " preliminary injunction as may be necessary for
    the preservation of the rights of the parties pending the
    proceeding." (Section 5, Rule 38, Rules of Court.) As
    pointed out aptly by the respondent Court of Appeals:

    xxx xxx xxx


    What the respondents entirely overlook is the fact that
    the order denying the petition for relief is appealable to
    this Court and the judgment on the merits may be
    assailed in the appeal on the ground that it is not
    supported by the evidence and/or is contrary to law
    (Sec. 2, 2nd paragraph, Rule 41). If so appealable, its
    supervisory power may be exercised for the purpose of
    preventing the premature and unjust execution of a
    judgment. If the writ of execution were allowed to take
    its course, the appeal might be rendered illusory and
    the decision thereon, should it be favorable to appellant,
    nugatory, ... ...., (Annex "1", Decision, pp. 12-13, Rollo.)
    It is to be further noted that in G.R. Nos. L-29479 and L29716, the right of the private respondent to seek a
    review of the decision of the trial court in connection
    with its appeal from the denial of the petition for relief
    was sustained. The possibility which the respondent
    Court of Appeals seeks to guard against still exists in
    greater likelihood. The judgment of the trial court the
    enforcement of which is sought to be restrained has not
    yet attained the status of being beyond modification or
    reversal. Hence, the enforcement of the same at this
    stage of the proceeding is premature. In the least, to
    stop its execution as was ordered by the respondent
    Court of Appeals may not be categorized as a grave
    abuse of discretion.
    WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari
    DENIED. With costs against the petitioners.

    is

    hereby

    SO ORDERED.
    Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova
    and Gutierrez, Jr. JJ., concur.

    You might also like