SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223135. July 4, 2016.]
JOSEFA YU, petitioner, vs. SIO TIAT KING, REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS FOR CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223135: JOSEFA YU v. SIO TIAT KING, REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS FOR CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the September 4, 2015 Decision 2 and February 11, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed Josefa Yu's (Yu) Petition for Certiorari4 for lack of merit. The dismissed Petition assailed the Orders dated October 4, 2012 5 and November 7, 2012 6 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, which granted Sio Tiat King's (King) Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. 7
King charged Yu with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 8 "for having issued a dishonored United Coconut Planters Bank Check No. 000560255 dated January 12, 2003 in the amount of P7,000,000." 9 The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 179 (04) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Digos City, Davao del Sur. 10
During the pendency of trial, King applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment to secure the satisfaction of any award in the civil aspect of the case that might be adjudicated in his favor. 11 On February 16, 2011, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities granted the application with the condition that King post a P500,000.00 bond. 12
Upon the approval of the bond, the Registrars of Deeds of Quezon City and of Calamba, Laguna were ordered to annotate the writ of preliminary attachment to Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 27882 and T-313409. 13 Both titles were in Yu's name. 14 The Securities and Exchange Commission was also directed to annotate the writ on the shares of stock that Yu subscribed with Filipinas Agri-Milling Corporation. 15
On August 22, 2012, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered the Decision 16 finding Yu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It ordered her to pay King P7,000,000.00 representing the value of the dishonored check, P200,000.00 as fine, and P20,000.00 in attorney's fees. 17 Yu appealed this conviction before the Regional Trial Court. 18
On September 27, 2012, King filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. 19 The Motion alleged that Yu was already a septuagenarian and that she had no intention of paying her civil liabilities because she was already disposing of her stocks and properties. 20 Yu filed an Opposition on October 3, 2012. 21 On the same day, King filed an Ex-Parte Motion for the Release Bond, which the Municipal Trial Court in Cities granted in the Order dated October 10, 2012. 22
Yu appealed her conviction before Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court of Digos City, which docketed it as Crim. Case No. 351 (2012). On October 4, 2012, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities issued the Order 23 granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
Yu moved for reconsideration, 24 but the Motion was denied in the Order 25 dated November 7, 2012. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities ordered the Sheriff to proceed with the sale of the attached properties. 26 TIADCc
On November 13, 2012, Sheriff Samuel Espinoza filed a Sheriff's Manifestation with Prayer stating that Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 27882 and T-313409 had already been cancelled and that new certificates of title had been issued in the name of Yu's sons, Zenon Yu and Jonathan Yu. 27
On November 14, 2012, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities issued the Order 28 directing the Sheriff to annotate the new certificates of title since the new titles were merely derived from Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 27882 and T-313409. 29 The Order further stated that the Registrars of Deeds of Quezon City and of Laguna had the duty of annotating the writ of preliminary attachment on the new titles, though they erroneously failed to do so. 30
On December 3, 2012, the Sheriff issued a Notice of Sale of Real Property over the new certificates of title and scheduled a public auction for its sale. 31 On January 21, 2013, Yu filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari32 alleging that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
During the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision 33 in Crim. Case No. 351 (2012) acquitting Yu for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 34 It also extinguished Yu's civil liability based on evidence that Yu had already paid King the full value of the amount allegedly defrauded. 35
On September 4, 2015, the Court of Appeals rendered the Decision 36 denying the Petition for lack of merit.
According to the Court of Appeals, the immediate execution of judgment pending appeal was justified since the evidence showed that Yu had been fraudulently disposing of her stocks and properties since the filing of the complaint against her. 37 The evidence consisted of the 2003 and 2004 General Information Sheets of Filipinas Agri-Milling Corporation and the new certificates of title issued in favor of Yu's sons. 38
The Court of Appeals pointed out that the alleged payment of Yu's civil liability should have been brought as a defense in the appeal of the Regional Trial Court Decision in Crim. Case No. 351 (2012), and not as a defense in the case involving the grant of the execution pending appeal. It held that the issue before it was whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. 39 However, it emphasized that the criminal case was still pending appeal; hence, Yu still had a remedy under Rule 39, Section 5 40 of the Rules of Court if that judgment is rendered in her favor. 41
Yu moved for reconsideration 42 of this Decision, but the Motion was denied in the Resolution 43 dated February 11, 2016.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed.
Petitioner Josefa Yu argues that respondent Sio Tiat King failed to prove any justifiable reason to allow the execution of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Decision, pending appeal. 44 She asserts that the transfer of the properties to her sons was not fraudulent since the writ of attachment would have been annotated in the new titles. 45 She argues that the failure of the Registrars of Deeds to annotate the writ should not be considered a badge of fraud in the absence of evidence that she colluded with the Registrars. 46 Petitioner likewise insists that the absence of her name in the 2004 General Information Sheet of Filipinas Agri-Milling Corporation is not conclusive proof of fraud since respondent failed to present other corporate books to prove that she disposed of her stocks in bad faith. 47
Petitioner further alleges that her alleged civil liability has already been fully paid and that the payment was confirmed by the Regional Trial Court in its Decision in Crim. Case No. 351 (2012). 48
The sole issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Orders of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities granting respondent's Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
A judgment is executed only when it has become final and executory, such as when the period of appeal has lapsed without any appeal being filed, or if an appeal has been filed, when the appeal has been finally resolved. 49 In these instances, a writ of execution is issued as a matter of right. 50 AIDSTE
Execution of a judgment pending appeal, therefore, is the exception. 51
Under Rule 29, Section 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, discretionary execution may be allowed only "upon good reasons[.]" 52 Good reasons are "compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory." 53 These reasons must be of such weight and character that they outweigh any possible damage or injury that may result if the judgment being executed is reversed. 54
Respondent alleged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities that petitioner began to dispose of her properties under attachment while the case was pending. 55 The Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the Court of Appeals found that the two (2) attached real properties were currently registered under the names of petitioner's sons, without the writ of attachment annotated on the titles. 56 It was also found that despite petitioner's shares of stock being under attachment, she was no longer listed as a shareholder in Filipinas Agri-Milling Corporation's General Information Sheet. This leads to the conclusion that she already disposed of the stocks in the interim. 57
Indeed, the lower courts' findings show compelling reasons to justify an immediate execution of judgment. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
A supervening event, however, occurred when the Petition for Certiorari was pending before the Court of Appeals. The decision under appeal — that is, Crim. Case No. 351 (2012) — was resolved by the Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial Court acquitted petitioner of the crime and found that although she was civilly liable, the entirety of her civil liability had since been paid in full. 58 This decision is now under appeal before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06717-MIN. 59
A motion for discretionary execution is merely ancillary to the appeal. Any decision upholding the grant of the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal would directly conflict with the findings of the Regional Trial Court that the civil liability has since been extinguished.
Thus, to avoid conflicting resolutions on the issues presented, it would be prudent to remand this case to the Court of Appeals and be consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 06717-MIN. There, the parties can present evidence as to the propriety of the execution pending appeal and the alleged extinguishment of the civil liability.
WHEREFORE, the September 4, 2015 Decision and February 11, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05336-MIN are SET ASIDE. CA-G.R. SP No. 05336-MIN is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for consolidation with CA-G.R. SP No. 06717-MIN.
The Comment and/or Opposition to the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated May 12, 2016 is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-37.
2. Id. at 40-55. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting of the Twenty-Second Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
3. Id. at 57-60. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo A. Camello of the Special Former Twenty-Second Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
4. Id. at 159-215.
5. Id. at 135-137.
6. Id. at 155-157.
7. Id. at 110-113.
8. An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and Other Purposes (1979).
9. Rollo, p. 41.
10. Id. at 40-41.
11. Id. at 41.
12. Id. The Resolution was penned by Assisting Judge Ray C. Andres. See also rollo, pp. 194-199, Order of Preliminary Attachment; and p. 51, footnote 9 of the Court of Appeals Decision.
13. Id. at 41.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 97-108. The Decision was penned by Assisting Judge Ray C. Andres.
17. Id. at 108.
18. Id. at 42.
19. Id. at 110-113.
20. Id. at 111-112.
21. Id. at 123-133.
22. Id. at 44.
23. Id. at 135-137. The Order was penned by Assisting Judge Ray C. Andres.
24. Id. at 139-141.
25. Id. at 155-157. The Order was penned by Assisting Judge Ray C. Andres.
26. Id. at 156.
27. Id. at 44.
28. Id. at 251-252. The Order was penned by Assisting Judge Ray C. Andres.
29. Id. at 252.
30. Id.
31. Id. at 253.
32. Id. at 159-186.
33. Id. at 451-461. The Decision was penned by Judge Magnolia C. Velez.
34. The Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06717-MIN and is pending (Id. at 51.).
35. Rollo, p. 458.
36. Id. at 40-55.
37. Id. at 50.
38. Id. at 50-51.
39. Id.
40. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 5 provides:
SEC. 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. — Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
41. Rollo, p. 54.
42. Id. at 62-79.
43. Id. at 57-60.
44. Id. at 19.
45. Id. at 24.
46. Id.
47. Id. at 24-25.
48. Id. at 458.
49. RULES OF COURT, rule 39, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. — Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. (1a)
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
50. RULES OF COURT, rule 39, sec. 1.
51. See Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corporation, 624 Phil. 373, 381 (2010) [Per J. Abad, Second Division].
52. RULES OF COURT, rule 29, sec. 2 (a) provides:
SEC. 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or 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. (Emphasis supplied)
53. Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corporation, 624 Phil. 373, 381 (2010) [Per J. Abad, Second Division].
54. Id.
55. Rollo, pp. 111-112.
56. Id. at 51-52 and 137.
57. Id. at 50 and 136-137.
58. Id. at 460.
59. Id. at 51.