Valencia vs. Court of Appeals

Execution pending appeal is discretionary upon the trial court and requires the movant to establish cogent and compelling reasons that outweigh potential injury should the judgment be reversed; a petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available against final and executory judgments, not those pending appeal; and filing successive petitions for relief and annulment of judgment involving the same transaction, facts, and cause of action constitutes forum-shopping.

The case arose from a dispute over ownership and possession of a fishpond located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Paombong, Bulacan, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 589 in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (RCBM). The conflict involved competing claims between the RCBM (and its lessee, Rufino Valencia) and the residents of Barrio Sta. Cruz who claimed to be the true owners of the property and alleged that the RCBM was merely a trustee.

• On May 9, 1990, petitioner Rufino Valencia entered into a lease agreement with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (RCBM) involving a fishpond registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 589, paying P300,000.00 as rental for 1990-1991 and investing P1,575,000.00 for milkfish fingerlings.
• On May 31, 1990, private respondents (People of Barrio Sta. Cruz) filed a complaint against RCBM for declaration of nullity of OCT No. 589, alleging they were the true owners and that RCBM was a mere trustee, and praying for an injunction to prevent leasing.
• On June 26, 1990, Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr. issued a resolution enjoining RCBM and all persons claiming under them from leasing or implementing the lease, subject to the right of whoever sowed fish to remain in possession.
• On September 10, 1990, Judge Masadao allowed private respondents' lessee, Rodrigo Bagtas, to operate the fishpond under court supervision, with rentals paid to the clerk of court.
• Petitioner intervened in the case, filed an answer in intervention with a counterclaim for P1,575,000.00 plus damages, and moved to set aside the September 10, 1990 order, which was granted.
• On April 21, 1993, Judge Masadao dismissed the case motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction, opining that the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
• After both parties moved for reconsideration, the case was reinstated and scheduled for pre-trial on June 29, 1993, but petitioner was not informed thereof and failed to attend.
• On June 29, 1993, Judge Masadao issued an order adopting the evidence already presented and considering the case submitted for decision; petitioner's former counsel received a copy but failed to inform him.
• On July 5, 1993, Judge Masadao rendered judgment upholding the validity of RCBM's title and its lease contract with petitioner, but dismissed petitioner's counterclaim for lack of evidence.
• Upon belatedly learning of the judgment, petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal on August 5, 1993, and a petition for relief from the portion of the judgment dismissing his counterclaim, alleging his failure to appeal was due to his former counsel's mistaken belief that he was no longer interested in the counterclaim.
• On January 26, 1994, Judge Ildefonso E. Gascon denied the motion for execution pending appeal and deferred action on the petition for relief, finding no cogent and good reasons for execution and noting that granting the petition for relief would pre-empt the appellate court's ruling.

• The trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for execution pending appeal because the portion sought to be executed had not been vacated by private respondents' appeal.
• The trial court's duty under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, except Sections 4 and 6 thereof, is purely ministerial, requiring the judge to order the adverse party to answer, conduct a hearing, and decide the petition; thus, deferring action was a dereliction of duty.
• The portion of the judgment dismissing the counterclaim was null and void for lack of due process because petitioner was not notified of the pre-trial conference.
• There was no forum-shopping because the petition for relief in the trial court and the petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals were different remedies with different prayers.
• Execution pending appeal should be allowed because petitioner was entitled to possession of the fishpond under the lease agreement, and the writ was necessary to prevent a bloody confrontation between the parties.

• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for execution pending appeal and deferring action on the petition for relief, as appreciation of the reasons for execution lies within the court's sound discretion, and deferring the petition for relief would avoid preempting the Court of Appeals.
• The trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim was correct.
• Petitioner was forum-shopping when he filed a complaint for annulment of judgment after failing to obtain a favorable result in his petition for relief from judgment.
• There were no special circumstances justifying urgency in the execution of the judgment that could outweigh the injury in case of reversal.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for execution pending appeal.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to compel the trial court to act on the petition for relief from judgment.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was pro forma.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner committed forum-shopping by filing a complaint for annulment of judgment.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether private respondents' appeal had already been perfected when petitioner filed the motion for execution.
  • Whether the trial court's duty under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court (except Sections 4 and 6) is purely ministerial.
  • Whether the dismissal of petitioner's counterclaim violated his right to due process.
  • Whether execution pending appeal should be allowed under the circumstances of the case.

• Procedural:
  • The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for execution pending appeal. Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal is discretionary and requires the movant to establish good reasons. Petitioner failed to present cogent and compelling reasons that outweighed the potential damage should the judgment be reversed.
  • The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deferring action on the petition for relief from judgment. A petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and executory judgment; where an appeal has been filed and is pending, the judgment has not yet attained finality, and the trial court may properly defer action to avoid preempting the appellate court's ruling.
  • The issue regarding the motion for reconsideration being pro forma was declared moot and academic by the Supreme Court.
  • The Court of Appeals correctly found forum-shopping. The petition for relief in the trial court and the petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals emanated from the same transaction (the lease contract), involved the same facts and circumstances, identical causes of action (setting aside the dismissal of the counterclaim), and the same subject matter.
• Substantive:
  • Private respondents' appeal had been perfected upon the expiration of the last day to appeal, which affected the status of the judgment sought to be executed. The trial court correctly found that the portion of the decision sought to be executed had been vacated by the timely appeal.
  • The trial court's duty under Rule 38 is not purely ministerial when the judgment is not yet final; the court has discretion to defer action pending appeal.
  • The issue regarding the dismissal of the counterclaim for lack of due process could be settled in the petition for relief before the trial court. Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is available only when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner; here, the petition for relief remained available.
  • Execution pending appeal should not be allowed. Petitioner offered only self-serving claims of potential damage and imagined fears of confrontation, without substantiating the material and substantial invasion of his rights or the urgent necessity required for such extraordinary relief.

• Execution Pending Appeal — Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal is discretionary and may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. The movant must demonstrate superior circumstances demanding urgency that outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ should the judgment be reversed on appeal.
• Perfection of Appeal — Under Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the perfection of an appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction, but once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case.
• Petition for Relief from Judgment — Under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, a petition for relief is only available against a final and executory judgment, not against a judgment that is pending appeal. The trial court has discretion to defer action on such a petition when an appeal is pending to avoid preempting the appellate court's ruling.
• Forum-Shopping — There is forum-shopping when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, where the actions involve the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances, and identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.
• Annulment of Judgment — Under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, annulment of judgment is available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

• "Section 23 of 'E. Appellate Jurisdiction' in the Interim Rules and Guidelines Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that perfection of an appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party."
• "A petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and executory judgment."
• "There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another and that the actions that were filed involve the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances."
• "It is not enough for him to claim he needed a writ of execution without detailing cogent and good reasons therefor."

• Echauz vs. Court of Appeals — Cited by petitioner for the principle that execution pending appeal is generally allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ.
• Cebu Contractors vs. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case.
• Sonida Industries Co., Inc. vs. Wasan, Sr. — Cited for the rule that the trial court can take cognizance of a motion for execution pending appeal if filed within 15 days from the party's notice of the decision.
• Bernabe vs. Court of Appeals — Cited in support of the doctrine that a petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and executory judgment.
• Government Service Insurance System vs. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the definition of forum-shopping as seeking a favorable opinion in another forum after an adverse opinion in one.
• Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) vs. Court of Appeals — Cited for the elements of forum-shopping requiring identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.
• Syndicated Media Access Corporation vs. Court of Appeals — Cited for the requisites for the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction.

• Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court — Governs discretionary execution pending appeal, requiring good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
• Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Provides that perfection of appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.
• Rule 38, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Rules of Court — Govern petitions for relief from judgment, orders, or other proceedings, including the time for filing and preliminary injunction provisions.
• Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Defines the coverage of annulment of judgment actions, available only when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.