This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-01-21 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the Florendos' posting of a P4 million bond to answer for the damages that respondent Paramount might suffer in case the RTC decision is reversed on appeal is quite insufficient.[22] The lands had a market value of P42 million in 2001.[23] | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that only judgments which have become final and executory may be executed.[52] 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.[53] 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.[54] Since the execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence of good reasons is essential.[55] | |||||
|
2005-04-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of Flexo, the posting of a bond will not justify execution pending appeal. The rule is now settled that the mere filing of a bond by the successful party is not a good reason for ordering execution pending appeal, as "a combination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution, the requirement of a bond is imposed merely as an additional factor, no doubt for the protection of the defendant's creditor."[20] Otherwise, execution pending appeal could be obtained through the mere filing of such a bond.[21] | |||||