FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234500. January 31, 2018.]
MA. IMMACULADA CORAZON LIM, CHERRY LYN D. CASTILLO AND ANN PAREDES, petitioners, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 31, 2018, which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 234500 — MA. IMMACULADA CORAZON LIM, CHERRY LYN D. CASTILLO AND ANN PAREDES, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, Respondent. — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The Court further resolves to DENY the petition for failure of petitioners Ma. Immaculada Corazon Lim, Cherry Lyn D. Castillo and Ann Paredes (Lim, et al.) to pay the legal research fund fee and their failure to point to any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed, in its assailed August 24, 2017 Decision, both the Special Order dated September 28, 2015 and the Order dated October 12, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Bauang, La Union in Civil Case No. 2322-BG. In said orders, the trial court granted the motion for issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic).
The Rules of Court allows executions pending appeal under the conditions set forth in Section 2 of Rule 39 thereof, which reads:
Sec. 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or a final order pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
The Court finds no reason to overturn the appellate court's finding that the trial court still exercised residual jurisdiction over the case. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the trial court's Order dated October 12, 2015 clearly stated that the records of the case have not been transmitted to the Court of Appeals at the time the trial court acted on the Republic's motion for execution pending appeal. The burden is on petitioners to prove by competent evidence their own allegation that the trial court has already lost jurisdiction. cSEDTC
We likewise concur with the Court of Appeals that there were valid considerations for the trial court's grant of the Republic's motion. In the recent case of Abenion v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., 1 we expounded on the concept of execution of a judgment pending appeal in the following manner:
The general rule is that only judgments which have become final and executory may be executed. 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. 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. Since the execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence of good reasons is essential. 2
Jurisprudence also states that "good reasons" required to support an execution of a judgment pending appeal 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. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity. 3
The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the grounds raised by the OSG in its motion for execution of judgment pending appeal, specifically that the OSG received reports that petitioners Lim, et al., were reclaiming the parcels of land in violation of existing laws and that the same petitioners had increased their security complement over said properties in violation of the trial court's July 24, 2015 Decision were compelling enough circumstances to warrant the issuance of the trial court's Special Order dated September 28, 2015 granting respondent Republic's motion.
In sum, we find the petition patently unmeritorious.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
1. G.R. Nos. 200749 & 208725, February 6, 2017.
2.Id.; citing Manacop v. Equitable PCIBank, 505 Phil. 361, 381 (2005).
3.Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., 624 Phil. 373, 381 (2010).