ASTRAQUILLO VS.

JAVIER
GR L-20034 JANUARY 30, 1965
FACTS:
The case at bar is an appeal of the decision of the CA to uphold
the trial court’s issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal.
The trial court, in a case filed by the petitioners against
respondents, decided in favor of the respondents, dismissing the
complaint and rendering the real estate mortgage void, and asking th
petitioners to pay respondents unpaid rentals, damages, and other
costs.
The petitioner filed with the court a notice of appeal, appeal
bond and record of appeal. The respondents then questioned the
record saying that it was incomplete and defective. The trial court
then ordered the appeal to be first perfected. While waiting for the
appeal to be perfected, the respondents moved for the issuance of a
writ of execution pending appeal, based on the alleged insolvency of
the petitioners.
The trial court approved this and it issued a writ of execution
prior appeal. This was appealed by the petitioners with the CA under
petition for certiorari. The CA on its original decision decided in favor
of petitioners and issued also a writ of preliminary injunction. On a
motion for reconsideration though by the respondents, the CA
reversed its decision and upheld the writ issued by the trial court.
This was questioned by the petitioners, saying that the
respondents didn’t raise any new issue in its motion for the CA to have
substantive reason to reverse its decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the order of the trial
court to execute its decision pending appeal?
HELD:
The CA didn’t err in upholding the writ of execution pending
appeal of the trial court.

Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, it has been

established that it is discretionary upon the court if it will grant or deny
a motion and the appellate courts will not interfere to modify, control
or inquire upon such discretion unless there is abuse thereof.
In the case at bar, respondents were able to show records and
even the testimonies of the petitioners themselves to prove their
claims. The trial court acknowledged this and found it to be
substantial, moving it to use its power to grant the respondent’s
motion. The CA affirmed this in its disputed resolution.
The contention of the petitioners about the lack of substantial
reason for the CA to reverse its original decision is bereft of merit.
Under the Revised Rules of Court, courts have the power to amend
and control its orders and processes to make them conform to law and
justice. Courts have the right to reverse themselves especially when it
is their honest opinion that they have committed an error or mistake in
their judgment.
Furthermore, considering the facts are binding since in appeals
through Rule 45 the CA’s decision is conclusive with regard to facts
and cannot be disturbed by the SC, the SC finds that there has been
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SC in upholding the
writ of execution. Also, the insolvency of petitioner doesn’t need to be
proven directly, but it could be inferred through the circumstances
shown and raised.