Maceda vs. DBP

G.R. No. 135128 MACEDA VS.
DBP
August 26, 1999
FACTS: In their Complaint, P alleged that they were the owners of the old Gran Hotel in Tacloban City; that pursuant to their plan to build a new Gran Hotel, they applied for 11 M loan with P submitting to the latter a pro!ect study of the new hotel, the Philippine Tourism "uthority#s appro$al of the pro!ect, as well as the plans and specifications of the new Gran Hotel; that on %uly &', 1()*, P appro$ed a loan of )+, M and re-uired them to produce &+(M by way of e-uity, to constitute a first mortgage and to sign a Promissory .ote in the amount of )+, M; that the contract for the new Gran Hotel was awarded to Moreman /uilders Co+, which demolished the old Gran Hotel and proceeded to build the new Gran Hotel; that payment to said contractor was to be ta0en from the appro$ed loan, on a progressi$e manner, based on actual construction or wor0 accomplishment; that as of %une &1, 1()), they ha$e ad$anced to the contractor the sum of P1,&*&,(''+,'; that P had also released a total of 2ne P1,(11,,*3+33, out of their loan, to the contractor; that P , through its officer in charge of the pro!ect, defendant 2scar 4e 5era, conspired with the contractor to enable the latter to secure undue fund releases from their loan; P filed a Compla !t "o# R$s% ss o! o" Co!t#a%t a!& Damag$s and %ompla !t "o# Esta"a against the contractor and defendant 2scar 4e 5era +P thus prayed 617 that P be ordered to release the balance of their appro$ed loan, 6&7 that the interests and other charges imposed on the loan be nullified, 6,7 that P be made to pay them 6a7 unreali8ed earnings and9or loss of income, 6b7 actual damages representing additional costs or price increase in construction labor and materials, 6c7 moral damages, 6d7 e:emplary damages, 6e7 attorney#s fees, litigation e:penses and costs of suit+
1wphi1.nt
of attorney#s fees and litigation e:penses, P<33,333+33 in moral damages and costs of suit+ TC ruled in fa$or of petitioners PR " l$& a Not %$ o" App$al, (' l$ P " l$& a Mot o! "o# R$%o!s &$#at o!, see0ing to increase the amount awarded to them by TC+ They also filed a Mot o! "o# E)$%ut o! P$!& !g App$al + 2n 2ctober &, 1((), TC issued its first -uestioned 2rder, 617 mo& "* !g ts D$% s o! by increasing the amounts awarded to =Petitioner> /onifacio Maceda, %r+ and 6&7 granting the Motion for ?:ecution Pending "ppeal of two awards in its 4ecision+ 2n .o$ember <, 1((), P filed its Not %$ o" App$al from the @ebruary &<, 1(() 4ecision, as amended by the 2ctober &, 1(() 2rder of TC 2n the same date, it also filed a Mot o! "o# R$%o!s &$#at o! of the 2ctober &, 1(() 2rder insofar as it grants e:ecution pending appeal+ Thereafter, or on March &*, 1((', it filed a Suppl$m$!tal Mot o! for the appro$al of a supersedeas as bond in the amount of P,<M and to stay the e:ecution pending appeal in the e$ent that its Motion for econsideration be denied+ TC denied all P As motion+ Thus, P appealed the TCAB decision before the C"+ C" ruled in fa$or of P on the ground that there e:isted no sufficient ground or compelling reason to allow the e:ecution of the !udgment pending appeal+Hence, this Petition+13 ISSUE: WON there are good reasons to !ustify e:ecution of the trial court !udgment pending appeal+ HELD: .2+The e:ecution of a !udgment during the pendency of an appeal is go$erned by Bection &, ule ,( of the 1(() ules of Court+ This rule is strictly construed against the mo$ant, for Ccourts loo0 with disfa$or upon any attempt to e:ecute a !udgment which has not ac-uired a final character+C1& In the same $ein, the Court has held that such e:ecution Cis usually not fa$ored because it affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal+C 1,There are t'#$$ #$+u s t$s "o# t'$ g#a!t o" a! $)$%ut o! o" a ,u&gm$!t p$!& !g app$al- Ca7 there must be a motion by the pre$ailing party with notice to the ad$erse party; b7 there must be a good reason for e:ecution pending appeal; and c7 the good reason must be stated in a special order+C11 Dnderscoring the importance of the re-uisite Cgood reasons,C the Court ruled in Ong v+ Court of AppealsE1< Petitioners ha$e failed to present ade-uate reasons to show that the Court of "ppeals committed re$ersible errors in o$erturning the trial court#s 2rder+ "s mo$ants, they ha$e the burden of showing why the lower court#s 4ecision should be e:ecuted without awaiting the result of the appeal+ "bsent such !ustification, e:ecution pending appeal cannot be granted+
1wphi1.nt
In their "nswer to the Complaint, P and 4e 5era a$erred that releases on the loan of P to the contractor were made through P, /onifacio Maceda, %r+, that while the trial court decided in fa$or of P, still P could not ma0e any releases on their loan considering the appeal filed by the contractor; t'at (' l$ sa & %as$ (as p$!& !g, at l$ast t(o suppl $#s " l$& %as$s against P,for non;payment of salaries9wages and costs of suppliers; that said pending case also caused the construction of the hotel pro!ect to stop and the period of the loan a$ailment to lapse; that during the negotiation for re$i$al of the loan, P alleged that P failed to ma0e payments according to schedule; and that ha$ing agreed to all the terms of their transactions, P are estopped from -uestioning the conditions of the loan as well as the releases thereof+ "fter praying for dismissal of the Complaint, P counterclaimed for P&33,333+33 by way
P?TITI2. F"B 4?.I?4+

Maceda vs. DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maceda vs. DBP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maceda vs. DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 135128 MACEDA VS.

August 26, 1999

P?TITI2. F"B 4?.I?4+

You might also like