Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 632 views

    Diesel V Jollibee

    Uploaded by

    cmv mendoza
    - Diesel Construction Company sued Jollibee Foods Corporation to recover escalated construction costs and won in trial court, which allowed execution pending appeal upon Diesel posting a bond. Jollibee appealed. - The Court of Appeals stayed execution upon Jollibee posting a supersedeas bond, which Diesel challenged. - The Supreme Court ruled that the CA has discretion to stay or allow execution pending appeal. It also found that Diesel's financial distress alone was not a compelling reason for immediate execution, and that Jollibee posting a bond did not automatically warrant a stay. The CA resolutions were set aside.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Diesel V Jollibee

    Uploaded by

    cmv mendoza
    632 views1 page
    - Diesel Construction Company sued Jollibee Foods Corporation to recover escalated construction costs and won in trial court, which allowed execution pending appeal upon Diesel posting a bond. Jollibee appealed. - The Court of Appeals stayed execution upon Jollibee posting a supersedeas bond, which Diesel challenged. - The Supreme Court ruled that the CA has discretion to stay or allow execution pending appeal. It also found that Diesel's financial distress alone was not a compelling reason for immediate execution, and that Jollibee posting a bond did not automatically warrant a stay. The CA resolutions were set aside.

    Original Title

    Diesel v Jollibee

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Diesel Construction Company sued Jollibee Foods Corporation to recover escalated construction costs and won in trial court, which allowed execution pending appeal upon Diesel posting a bond. Jollibee appealed. - The Court of Appeals stayed execution upon Jollibee posting a supersedeas bond, which Diesel challenged. - The Supreme Court ruled that the CA has discretion to stay or allow execution pending appeal. It also found that Diesel's financial distress alone was not a compelling reason for immediate execution, and that Jollibee posting a bond did not automatically warrant a stay. The CA resolutions were set aside.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    632 views1 page

    Diesel V Jollibee

    Uploaded by

    cmv mendoza
    - Diesel Construction Company sued Jollibee Foods Corporation to recover escalated construction costs and won in trial court, which allowed execution pending appeal upon Diesel posting a bond. Jollibee appealed. - The Court of Appeals stayed execution upon Jollibee posting a supersedeas bond, which Diesel challenged. - The Supreme Court ruled that the CA has discretion to stay or allow execution pending appeal. It also found that Diesel's financial distress alone was not a compelling reason for immediate execution, and that Jollibee posting a bond did not automatically warrant a stay. The CA resolutions were set aside.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP. GR 136805 PANGANIBAN; JAN.

    28, 2000
    NATURE Petition for review under Rule 45, assailing 2 resolutions of the CA FACTS - Diesel instituted an action for recovery of escalated construction costs amounting to P4.3m in the RTC Makati, which it had allegedly incurred in constructing buildings for respondent Jollibee in Batangas City and in Calamba, Laguna. - Jollibee, in its Answer, counterclaimed that petitioner allegedly failed to complete the projects on time so they sought recovery of damages and attys fees in the sum of P2.7m - After trial, the RTC ruled that Diesel had completed both projects on time and was entitled to escalated construction costs. - Diesel filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Jollibee likewise filed a Notice of Appeal and opposed petitioners prayer for execution pending appeal. - The RTC in a Special Order, allowed execution pending appeal upon the following findings: (1) Diesel was entitled to the payment of escalation cost; (2) Jollibees appeal was only meant to delay payment; and (3) Diesel would post a bond equal to 150% of the total amount of the judgment. - Jollibee filed a MFR with an alternative prayer that it be permitted to post a supersedeas bond pursuant to Rule 39 Sec.3. The RTC however denied the MFR on the ground that the filing of a counterbond was premature, because Diesel had yet to file its own bond. RTC later forwarded the original records of the case to the CA. - Diesel filed with the CA a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution on the grounds that the Special Order of the RTC had already become final and executory (Jollibee failed to question its propriety in time) and that it was ready to file the required bond. In response, Jollibee filed a Comment with Motion to Stay Execution by the Posting of Supersedeas Bond. - The CA, in the 1st assailed resolution directed the RTC to issue a writ of execution upon petitioner's posting of a P10m bond, and to stay execution upon respondent's filing of a supersedeas bond of P15m. Diesel filed a MFR regarding the granting of a stay of execution but the CA, in its 2nd assailed resolution, denied said MFR. Hence, this Petition. ISSUES

    1. WON a petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to question an Order (of the CA) staying execution pending appeal 2. WON the CA has jurisdiction to issue such Order and whether estoppel barred petitioner from questioning the CAs jurisdiction 3. Whether the pendency of an appeal or the posting of a supersedeas bond justifies a stay of execution pending appeal. HELD 1. NO. Ratio Rule 45 is the proper remedy to question final judgments, not interlocutory orders of the CA (such as, in this case, a Resolution granting a stay of execution) Reasoning Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters which do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. It is well-settled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not Rule 45, is the proper remedy to question an improvident order granting execution pending appeal and thereby relieve the adverse party from the immediate effects thereof. The same principle applies to a stay of such execution. *Notwithstanding this procedural error by petitioner, the SC treated the matter as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, to resolve the substantive and important issues being raised. 2. YES, the law vests the CA with jurisdiction to grant or deny discretionary execution, with or without estoppel on the part of the petitioner. Ratio The CA may not be compelled to enforce a Special Order issued by the trial court. The CA has its own separate and original discretionary jurisdiction to grant or to stay execution pending appeal, except in civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure and in other cases when the law or the Rules provide otherwise. - From a reading of Rule 42 and Rule 39 Sections 2 and 3, after the perfection of the appeal and the transmittal of the records, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. Henceforth, it may no longer grant a motion for, or issue a writ of execution. Reasoning While it is true that the trial court granted the Motion of the petitioner for execution pending appeal, it did not actually issue a writ of execution, because the latter had failed to comply with the Special Order proviso requiring the posting of a bond. Eventually, two separate appeals filed by both parties were perfected, and the records of the case were transmitted by the RTC to the CA. From then on, the trial court lost jurisdiction to issue the said writ. When the petitioner asked the CA for the issuance of the writ at the time, it thereby invoked

    the original discretionary jurisdiction of the latter to grant execution pending appeal 3. NO. Ratio The execution of a judgment before its finality must be founded upon good reasons. Good reason imports a superior circumstance that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party. Reasoning Petitioner failed to show paramount and compelling reasons of urgency and justice. Petitioner cites as good reason merely the fact that it is a small-time building contractor that could illafford the protracted delay in the reimbursement of the advances it made for the aforesaid increased costs of construction of the [respondent's] buildings. - Petitioner's allegedly precarious financial condition, however, is not by itself a jurisprudentially compelling circumstance warranting immediate execution. The financial distress of a juridical entity is not comparable to a case involving a natural person such as a very old and sickly one without any means of livelihood; an heir seeking an order for support and monthly allowance for subsistence; or one who dies. The alleged financial distress of a corp. does not outweigh the long standing general policy of enforcing only final and executory judgments. A juridical entity has, other than extraordinary execution, alternative remedies like loans, advances, internal cash generation and the like to address IN SUM: the appellate court is authorized by the Rules to order or to stay execution pending appeal upon good reason. Diesels alleged financial distress, by itself, is not a compelling reason to order immediate execution. On the other hand, mere filing by Jollibee of a supersedeas bond does not automatically entitle it to a stay of execution. Disposition assailed Resolutions are SET ASIDE. No good reasons to grant extraordinary execution in the context of the present case.

    You might also like