VOL.

382,MAY28,2002

357

Gan vs. Reyes

*

G.R.No.145527.May28,2002.

AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN, petitioner, vs. HON.

ANTONIOC.REYES,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudgeof
RTCBr.61,BaguioCity,ALBERTG.TOLENTINO,inhis
capacity as RTC Sheriff of Baguio City, and
FRANCHESKA JOY C. PONDEVIDA, assisted by
BERNADETTEC.PONDEVIDA,respondents.
Actions; Parent and Child; Support; Unless ordered by the trial
court, judgments in actions for support are immediately executory
and cannot be stayed by an appeal, which is an exception to the
general rule which provides that the taking of an appeal stays the
execution of the judgment and that advance executions will only be
allowed if there are urgent reasons therefor.Section4,Rule39,of
the Rules of Court clearly states that, unless ordered by the trial
court, judgments in actions for support are immediately executory
and cannot be stayed by an appeal. This is an exception to the
generalrulewhichprovidesthatthetakingofanappealstaysthe
executionofthejudgmentandthatadvanceexecutionswillonlybe
allowedifthereareurgentreasonstherefor.Theaforesaidprovision
peremptorily calls for immediate execution of all judgments for
support and makes no distinction between those which are the
subject of an appeal and those which are not. To consider then
petitioners argument that there should be good reasons for the
advance execution of a judgment would violate the clear and
explicitlanguageoftherulemandatingimmediateexecution.
______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

358

358

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

Statutory Construction; To the plain words of a legal provision,

courts should make no further explanationabsoluta sententia
expositore non indiget.Petitioner is reminded that to the plain
words of a legal provision we should make no further explanation.
Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. Indeed, the
interpretationwhichpetitionerattemptstofoistuponuswouldonly
leadtoabsurdity,itsacceptancenegatingtheplainmeaningofthe
provisionsubjectofthepetition.

Procedural Rules and Technicalities; A technicality should be

an aid to justice and not its great hindrance and chief enemy.We
arenotintimatingthatineverycasetherighttonoticeofhearing
canbedisregarded.Thatisnotso.Itappearsinthiscasethatthere
has been too much temporizing in the execution of the writ which
mustnotbeallowedtothwarttheconstitutionalmandateforspeedy
disposition of cases. As has been said, a technicality should be an
aidtojusticeandnotitsgreathindranceandchiefenemy.Truly,if
the writ of execution would be voided on this ground alone, then
procedural rules which were primarily drafted to protect parties in
therealmofconstitutionalguaranteeswouldacquireanewsanctity
attheexpenseofequityandjustice.
Support; In all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare
are always the paramount concerns.Inallcasesinvolvingachild,
hisinterestandwelfarearealwaystheparamountconcerns.There
maybeinstanceswhere,inviewofthepovertyofthechild,itwould
be a travesty of justice to refuse him support until the decision of
thetrialcourtattainsfinalitywhiletimecontinuestoslipaway.An
excerptfromtheearlycaseofDe Leon v. Soriano is relevant, thus:
Themoneyandpropertyadjudgedforsupportandeducationshould
andmustbegivenpresentlyandwithoutdelaybecauseifithadto
wait the final judgment, the children may in the meantime have
suffered because of lack of food or have missed and lost years in
school because of lack of funds. One cannot delay the payment of
such funds for support and education for the reason that if paid
long afterwards, however much the accumulated amount, its
payment cannot cure the evil and repair the damage caused. The
children with such belated payment for support and education
cannot act as gluttons and eat voraciously and unwisely,
afterwards, to make up for the years of hunger and starvation.
Neither may they enrol in several classes and schools and take up
numeroussubjectsallatoncetomakeupfortheyearstheymissed
inschool,duetononpaymentofthefundswhenneeded.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
359

VOL.382,MAY28,2002

359

Gan vs. Reyes

Fornier & Fornier Law Firmforpetitioner.
Leyretana Law Officeforprivaterespondent.
BELLOSILLO,J.:
Quite apprehensive that she would not be able to send to
school her three (3)year old daughter Francheska Joy S.
Pondevida, Bernadette1 S. Pondevida wrote petitioner
AugustusCaezarR.Gan demandingsupportfortheirlove
child.Petitioner,inhisreply,deniedpaternityofthechild.
AnexasperatedBernadettethereafterinstitutedinbehalfof
her daughter a complaint against2petitioner for support
withprayerforsupportpendente lite.
Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the

complaint failed to state a cause of action. He argued that

since Francheskas certificate of birth indicated her father
asUNKNOWN,therewasnolegalorfactualbasisforthe
3
claim of support.
His motion, however, was denied by the
4
trialcourt.
Despite denial of his motion, petitioner failed to file his
answer within the reglementary period. Thus, on 19
January2000privaterespondentmovedthatpetitionerbe
declaredindefault,whichmotionwasgranted.InitsOrder
declaring petitioner in default the trial court noted that
petitioners Motion to Admit Answer was filed more than
ninety (90) days after the expiration of the reglementary
period, and only after private respondent moved that
petitioner be declared in default. Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the court received
theevidenceofprivaterespondentex parte.
Afterfindingthattheclaimoffiliationandsupportwas
adequatelyproved,thetrialcourtrendereditsDecision on
12 May 2000 ordering petitioner to recognize private
respondentFrancheskaJoyS.Pondevidaashisillegitimate
child and support her with P20,000.00 every month to be
paidonorbeforethe15thofeachmonthstarting15April
2000.Likewisepetitionerwasor
______________
1AlsospelledAugustusCaesarR.Gan;Rollo,p.39.
2Id.,pp.5867.
3Id.,pp.7077.
4Id.,p.80.

360

360

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

deredtopayFrancheskaJoyS.Pondevidatheaccumulated
arrearsofP20,000.00permonthfromthedayshewasborn,
P50,000.00asattorneysfeesandP25,000.00forexpensesof
litigation, plus P20,000.00 on or before the 15th of every
monthfrom15May2000asalimonypendente liteshouldhe
desire to 5 pursue further remedies against private
respondent.
Forthwith,privaterespondentmovedforexecutionofthe
judgment of support, which the trial court granted by
issuingawritofexecution,citingasreasonthereforprivate
6
respondentsimmediateneedforschooling. Pursuanttothe
writ,thesherifflevieduponamotorvehicle,aHondaCity,
with Plate No. UMT 884, registered in the name of A.B.
Leasing&Fin.Corp.,Leasedto:G&GTrading,andfound
within
the premises of petitioners warehouse in Caloocan
7
City.
Meanwhile, petitioner
appealed the Judgment to the
8
CourtofAppeals.
On 9 June 2000 petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with the Court of Appeals imputing grave
abuse of discretion to the trial court for ordering the
immediate execution of the judgment. Petitioner averred

thatthewritofexecutionwasissueddespitetheabsenceof
a good reason for immediate enforcement. Petitioner
insistedthatasthejudgmentsoughttobeexecuteddidnot
yetattainfinalitythereshouldbeanexceptionalreasonto
warrant its execution. He further alleged that the writ
proceededfromanorderofdefaultandajudgmentrendered
by the trial court in complete disregard of his highly
meritorious defense. Finally, petitioner impugned the
validityofthewritashearguedthatitwasissuedwithout
notice to him. Petitioner stressed the fact that he received
copy of the motion for immediate
execution two (2) weeks
9
afteritsscheduledhearing.
______________
5DecisionpennedbyExecutiveJudgeAntonioC.Reyes,RTCBr.61,

BaguioCity;Id.,pp.108116.
6CARollo,p.99.
7Id.,pp.9698.
8Id.,pp.9091.
9Id.,pp.127.

361

VOL.382,MAY28,2002

361

Gan vs. Reyes

On 31 August 2000 the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition on the ratiocination that under Sec. 4, Rule 39 of
the1997RulesofCivilProcedurejudgmentsforsupportare
immediatelyexecutoryandcannotbestayedbyanappeal.
Thus,itdidnothelppetitioneranytoarguethattherewere
no good reasons to support its immediate execution. The
second challenge hurled against the validity of the writ
concerning the lack of notice and hearing was likewise
dismissed with the appeals court favoring substantial
justice over technicalities. Lastly, petitioners justification
forbelatedlyfilinghisanswer,i.e.,miscommunicationwith
his lawyer, was disregarded since it fell short of the
statutory requirements
of fraud, accident, mistake or
10
excusablenegligence.
His motion for reconsideration having been denied,
petitionercametousimpugningthedismissalofhispetition
for certiorari. Petitioner argues that under the rules a
judgment for support which is subject of an appeal cannot
be executed absent any good reason for its immediate
execution.Petitionerlikewiseattacksthevalidityofthewrit
assertingthatitwasissuedinviolationofhisrighttonotice
and hearing. Petitioner also seeks the setting aside of the
defaultorderandthejudgmentrenderedthereafterforthe
reason that should he be allowed to prove his defense of
11
adultery,theclaimofsupportwouldbemostlikelydenied.
Petitioner claims that in an action by a child against his
putative father, adultery of the childs mother would be a
validdefensetoshowthatthechildisafruitofadulterous
relations for, in such case, it would not be the child of the
defendant and therefore not entitled to support.
Parenthetically, how could he be allowed to prove the

defenseofadulterywhenitwasnotevenhintedthathewas
married to the mother of Francheska Joy. Petitioner
consentstosubmittoDioxyribonucleicAcid(DNA)Testing
toresolvetheissueofpaternity,whichtestheclaimshasa
12
reputationforaccuracy.
A careful review of the facts and circumstances of this
casefailstopersuadethisCourttobrandtheissuanceofthe
writofexecu
______________
10

Decision penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner and

concurred in by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and

AndresB.Reyes,Jr.
11Id,.pp.1336.
12Id.,pp.600608.

362

362

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

tionbythetrialcourtandaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals
with the vice of grave abuse of discretion. There is no
evidenceindeedtojustifythesettingasideofthewritonthe
ground that it was issued beyond the legitimate bounds of
judicialdiscretion.
Section 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court clearly states
that,unlessorderedbythetrialcourt,judgmentsinactions
forsupportareimmediatelyexecutoryandcannotbestayed
byanappeal.Thisisanexceptiontothegeneralrulewhich
providesthatthetakingofanappealstaystheexecutionof
the judgment and that advance executions will only be
allowedifthereareurgentreasonstherefor.Theaforesaid
provision peremptorily calls for immediate execution of all
judgments for support and makes no distinction between
those which are the subject of an appeal and those which
are not. To consider then petitioners argument that there
should be good reasons for the advance execution of a
judgment would violate the clear and explicit language of
therulemandatingimmediateexecution.
Petitionerisremindedthattotheplainwordsofalegal
provisionweshouldmakenofurtherexplanation.Absoluta
sententia expositore non indiget.Indeed,theinterpretation
whichpetitionerattemptstofoistuponuswouldonlyleadto
absurdity,itsacceptancenegatingtheplainmeaningofthe
provisionsubjectofthepetition.
Petitionerwouldalsohaveusannulthewritofexecution
on the ground that he was not notified of its issuance. We
areunabletoacceptsuchapleaforenoughhasbeendone
by petitioner to delay the execution of the writ. As the
recordsshow,inpartialfulfillmentofthewritofexecution
petitioner surrendered a sedan which apparently was not
hisasitwaslaterorderedreleasedtoathirdpartywholaid
13
claim over the levied vehicle. Also, petitioner filed before
theCourtofAppealsaMotion for Leave to Deposit in Court
Support Pendente Litepromisingtodeposittheamountdue
as support every 15th of the month, but to date has not

depositedany
______________
13

Sheriff s Report dated 31 October 2000 reveals that the levied

propertywasreleasedinfavorofA&BLeasingandFinanceCorp.;id.,
p.201.
363

VOL.382,MAY28,2002

363

Gan vs. Reyes

14

amountincompletedisavowalofhisundertaking. Hewas
notevendeterredfromappealingbeforeusandneedlessly
taking up our time and energy by posing legal questions
thatcanbecharacterized,atbest,asflimsyandtrivial.We
are thus not prepared to abrogate the writ of execution
issuedinfavorofprivaterespondentforsubstantialjustice
would be better served if petitioner be precluded from
interposing another barrier to the immediate execution of
thesupportjudgment.
We are not intimating that in every case the right to
notice of hearing can be disregarded. That is not so. It
appears in this case that there has been too much
temporizingintheexecutionofthewritwhichmustnotbe
allowed to thwart the constitutional mandate for speedy
dispositionofcases.Ashasbeensaid,atechnicalityshould
be an aid
to justice and not its great hindrance and chief
15
enemy. Truly,ifthewritofexecutionwouldbevoidedon
this ground alone, then procedural rules which were
primarily drafted to protect parties in the realm of
constitutional guarantees would acquire a new sanctity at
theexpenseofequityandjustice.
Lastly,wenotethatnousefulpurposewouldbeservedif
wedwellonpetitionersargumentsconcerningthevalidity
of the judgment by default and his insistence that he be
subjected, together with private respondent Bernadette C.
Pondevida to DNA testing to settle the issue of paternity.
Thefutilityofhisargumentsisveryapparent.Itisnotfor
usatthisinstancetorevieworrevisetheDecisionrendered
by the trial court for to do so would preempt the decision
whichmayberenderedbytheCourtofAppealsinthemain
caseforsupport.
Inallcasesinvolvingachild,hisinterestandwelfareare
always the paramount concerns. There may be instances
where, in view of the poverty of the child, it would be a
travestyofjusticetorefusehimsupportuntilthedecisionof
the trial court attains finality while time continues to slip
16
away.AnexcerptfromtheearlycaseofDe Leon v. Soriano
isrelevant,thus:
______________
14Id.,pp.182189.
15Pallada

v. RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1,364Phil.81;304 SCRA 440

(1999).
1695Phil.806(1954).

364

364

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

Themoneyandpropertyadjudgedforsupportandeducationshould
andmustbegivenpresentlyandwithoutdelaybecauseifithadto
wait the final judgment, the children may in the meantime have
suffered because of lack of food or have missed and lost years in
school because of lack of funds. One cannot delay the payment of
such funds for support and education for the reason that if paid
long afterwards, however much the accumulated amount, its
payment cannot cure the evil and repair the damage caused. The
children with such belated payment for support and education
cannot act as gluttons and eat voraciously and unwisely,
afterwards, to make up for the years of hunger and starvation.
Neither may they enrol in several classes and schools and take up
numeroussubjectsallatoncetomakeupfortheyearstheymissed
inschool,duetononpaymentofthefundswhenneeded.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Decision

soughttobereviewed,theinstantpetitionisDENIED.The
31August2000DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdismissing
thePetitionforCertiorariinstitutedbypetitionerAugustus
Caezar C. Gan and upholding the validity of the 2 June
2000WritofExecutionissuedbytheRegionalTrialCourt
Br. 61, Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 4234R, is
AFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr.andCorona, JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.Thefactthatthefatherofanillegitimatechild
has recognized the minor child may be a ground for
orderinghimtogivesupporttothelatter,butnotforgiving
him custody of the child. (David vs. Court of Appeals, 250
SCRA82[1995])
Whiletherightofanaturalparenttonamethechildis
recognized,guaranteedandprotectedunderthelaw,theso
called right of an adoptive parent to rename an adopted
childbyvirtueorasaconsequenceofadoption,evenforthe
mostnobleintentionsandmovingsupplications,isunheard
ofinlawandconsequentlycannotbefavorablyconsidered.
(Republic vs. Hernandez,253SCRA509[1996])
o0o
365

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.