EN BANC
[G.R. No. 48121. October 11, 1941. ]
JACINTO PRESBITERO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JUDGE SOTERO RODAS and FINANCING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Juan S. Aritao, for Petitioners.
Nolan & Manaloto, for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI, DISTINGUISHED. — Certiorari, and not prohibition, is the proper remedy to annul or modify an order alleged to have been entered by the Court of First Instance in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in ordering the execution of its judgment pending appeal and fixing the amount of the supersedeas bond to stay execution.
2. ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL; GOOD REASON FOR. — Section 2 of rule 39 empowers the Court of First Instance, in its discretion, to order the execution of its judgment pending appeal provided it states good reasons for so doing. The statement of the court in its order that the appeal was being taken for the purpose of delay is good and sufficient reason upon which to issue execution of the judgment pending appeal. Dilatory tactics constitute a great drawback to the administration of justice and cannot be countenanced by the courts.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; AMOUNT OF. — In an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage, the judgment is secured by the mortgaged property and, therefore, the supersedeas bond is not intended to cover the full amount of the judgment. The only purpose of the supersedeas bond in such a case is to secure the payment of any deficiency judgment that may be entered against the defendant, on the theory that by reason of the delay caused by the appeal the mortgage may become inadequate to secure the full amount of the judgment, for the value of the mortgaged property may fall in the meantime that the interest on the principal of the judgment piles up. Upon the facts of this case, this court reduced the supersedeas bond from P92,000 to P10,000.
2. ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL; GOOD REASON FOR. — Section 2 of rule 39 empowers the Court of First Instance, in its discretion, to order the execution of its judgment pending appeal provided it states good reasons for so doing. The statement of the court in its order that the appeal was being taken for the purpose of delay is good and sufficient reason upon which to issue execution of the judgment pending appeal. Dilatory tactics constitute a great drawback to the administration of justice and cannot be countenanced by the courts.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; AMOUNT OF. — In an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage, the judgment is secured by the mortgaged property and, therefore, the supersedeas bond is not intended to cover the full amount of the judgment. The only purpose of the supersedeas bond in such a case is to secure the payment of any deficiency judgment that may be entered against the defendant, on the theory that by reason of the delay caused by the appeal the mortgage may become inadequate to secure the full amount of the judgment, for the value of the mortgaged property may fall in the meantime that the interest on the principal of the judgment piles up. Upon the facts of this case, this court reduced the supersedeas bond from P92,000 to P10,000.
D E C I S I O N
OZAETA, J.:
This is a petition for prohibition arising from the following facts:.
In civil case No. 8466 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, entitled "Financing Corporation of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Jacinto Presbitero Et. Al., Defendants," said court rendered its decision on November 7, 1940, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En su consecuencia, el Juzgado dicta sentencia condenando a los demandados Jacinto P. Presbitero, Salvacion I. de Presbitero, Matilde Ginete. Jose Ginete, y Monserrat Ginete, asistida por su esposo Esteban Bobe (1) a pagar a la demandante dentro del plazo de tres meses desde la fecha de esta sentencia la suma de P72,905.96, mas los intereses devengados a razon de 9 por ciento al año desde el 16 de agosto de 1940 hasta su completo pago; mas 10 por ciento de la suma total adeudada en concepto de honorarios de abogado; (2) que si expirado el plazo de tres meses arriba mencionado los demandados dejaren de pagar a la demandante las cantidades indicadas arriba, el Juzgado ordena al Sheriff de esta provincia ejecute y venda las propiedades hipotecadas a la demandante mencionadas y descritas en los anexos A, B, C, D y E de la demanda en esta causa; (3) que si el producto de la venta no fuere suficiente para cubrir todo el importe de la sentencia, que se expida el correspondiente decreto por el saldo o deficit que resultare; y por
In civil case No. 8466 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, entitled "Financing Corporation of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Jacinto Presbitero Et. Al., Defendants," said court rendered its decision on November 7, 1940, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En su consecuencia, el Juzgado dicta sentencia condenando a los demandados Jacinto P. Presbitero, Salvacion I. de Presbitero, Matilde Ginete. Jose Ginete, y Monserrat Ginete, asistida por su esposo Esteban Bobe (1) a pagar a la demandante dentro del plazo de tres meses desde la fecha de esta sentencia la suma de P72,905.96, mas los intereses devengados a razon de 9 por ciento al año desde el 16 de agosto de 1940 hasta su completo pago; mas 10 por ciento de la suma total adeudada en concepto de honorarios de abogado; (2) que si expirado el plazo de tres meses arriba mencionado los demandados dejaren de pagar a la demandante las cantidades indicadas arriba, el Juzgado ordena al Sheriff de esta provincia ejecute y venda las propiedades hipotecadas a la demandante mencionadas y descritas en los anexos A, B, C, D y E de la demanda en esta causa; (3) que si el producto de la venta no fuere suficiente para cubrir todo el importe de la sentencia, que se expida el correspondiente decreto por el saldo o deficit que resultare; y por
