SECOND DIVISION

GEOLOGISTICS, INC., (formerly G.R. Nos. 174256-57

LEP International Philippines, Inc.),
Petitioner,
Present:

- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,*
CORONA,**
TINGA,
Acting Chairperson,
GATEWAY ELECTRONICS VELASCO, JR., and
CORPORATION and FIRST BRION, JJ.
LEPANTO TAISHO INSURANCE,
CORPORATION,
Respondents. Promulgated:

March 25, 2009

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
TINGA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari,[1] praying for the reversal of the amended decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 68465 and CA-G.R. SP No. 69441 and the reinstatement of the order[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
260, Paraaque City issuing a writ of partial execution.

As culled from the records of the case, the following factual antecedents appear:

Petitioner Geologistics, Inc., formerly known as LEP International Philippines, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the business
of freight forwarding and customs brokerage. On 17 October 1997, petitioner instituted an action for the recovery of sum of money
against respondent Gateway Electronic Corporation (respondent Gateway) before the RTC of Paraaque.[4] The case was docketed as
Civil Case No. 97-0496 and raffled to the sala of Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort of Branch 260. Petitioner prayed for a judgment
award in the amount of P4,769,954.32, representing the fees, including interest owed by respondent Gateway for petitioners services
as customs broker and freight forwarder.

The RTC subsequently issued a writ of preliminary attachment on the properties of respondent Gateway, prompting the latter

to move for its dissolution. Respondent First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (respondent surety) filed a counter-bond in the
amount of P5 million to secure the payment of any judgment that petitioner could recover from respondent Gateway.[5]

After hearing on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision[6] dated 19 October 2001, the dispositive portion of which reads:
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff:

1. The sum of Four Million Seven Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and Thirty
Two Centavos (P4,769,954.32) Pesos, plus the stipulated three (3%) interest per month computes
starting August 1, 1997 until the same is fully paid;
2. The amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages for wanton and
fraudulent acts of defendants, to serve as an example for the public good and to deter other from doing
same acts.
3. The amount of One Million One Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight pesos
(P1,192,488.00) representing the stipulated Twenty Five percent (25%) attorneys fees; and,

4. Costs.

Accordingly, the defendants counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[7]

Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal on 30 October 2001 which was opposed by respondent Gateway. The motion

alleged the following good reasons to execute the RTC decision pending appeal: (1) respondent Gateway was guilty of fraud in
contracting its obligations to petitioner; (2) the appeal was interposed to delay the case; (3) respondent Gateway had ceased operations
and was in imminent danger of insolvency; and (4) the counter-bond posted by respondent Gateway could be the subject of
execution.[8]

After petitioners filing of a reply to respondent Gateways opposition, the motion was submitted for resolution. Respondent
Gateway also filed a notice of appeal on 07 November 2001.[9]
In an Order dated 10 December 2001,[10] Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort granted petitioners motion for execution pending
appeal because respondent Gateway had admitted its principal obligation to petitioner and the case had been pending since
1997.[11] On 18 December 2001, Judge Ricafort issued a writ of execution, ordering the sheriff to execute respondent Gateways
counter-bond issued by respondent surety up to the amount of P4,769,954.32.[12] The writ of execution, directing respondent surety to
comply with the order of the RTC within five days from notification, was served on 09 January 2002.[13]

Respondent surety filed a motion to set aside the 10 December 2001 Order of Judge Ricafort and to quash the writ of execution, but
the motion was denied per Order dated 19 February 2002. In the same order, respondent surety was directed to pay petitioner the sum
of P4,769,954.32 without prejudice to the right of reimbursement thereafter from respondent Gateway.[14]

On 04 March 2002, Sheriff Elosoceje implemented the writ of execution through the garnishment of respondent suretys bank
account with Banco de Oro. On 18 March 2002, Sheriff Elosoceje received the garnished amount in the form of a managers check
which was then turned over to petitioners counsel.[15]

Meanwhile, both respondents filed separate Rule 65 petitions before the Court of Appeals against Judge Ricafort, Atty.
Clement Boloy, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff, Lucas Elosoceje, in his capacity as Sheriff, and herein petitioner.
 In the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (with urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction),[16] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68465, respondent Gateway advanced the following
arguments: (1) no good reason existed to justify execution pending appeal especially considering the fact that the case had already
been elevated on appeal; (2) the ground cited in the assailed order was not supported by the evidence on record; and (3) a writ of
partial execution can implement only a partial judgment.[17]

Respondent Gateways petition was initially dismissed by the appellate court, but upon motion for reconsideration, the
appellate court ordered its reinstatement and the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the enforcement of the RTCs
Decision and the Order dated 10 December 2001.[18]

Respondent suretys petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69441, sought the nullification of the RTC orders
issued on 10 December 2001 and 19 February 2002, the quashal of the writ of execution, the issuance of a TRO and a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution and the return of the garnished amount to respondent
surety.[19]
During the pendency of the two petitions, the Board of Directors of respondent Gateway resolved on 18 October 2004 to file
a petition for declaration of voluntary insolvency.[20]

On 28 February 2005, the Court of Appeals (First Division) rendered a Decision[21] in CA-G.R. SP No. 68465, granting
respondent Gateways petition. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated December 10, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court
of Paraaque City (Branch 260) and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. Respondent LEP International Phils., Inc. is hereby ordered to return the amount of P4,769,954.32 to First
Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporations deposit account.

SO ORDERED.[22]

Subsequently, on 31 March 2005, the Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) promulgated a Decision[23] in CA-G.R. SP No.
69441, adopting the prior decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 68465. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the petition is partly granted and the Order dated February 19, 2002 is nullified. The parties
are ordered to comply with the Decision dated February 28, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68465, which disposed of the
case as follows:

In other words, private respondent must return to First Lepanto (petitioner herein) the
amount garnished by the sheriff pursuant to the notice of garnishment, otherwise, petitioner would
be compelled to reimburse First Lepanto for the same.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated December 10, 2001 of the
Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City (Branch 260) and the writ of execution issued pursuant
thereto are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent LEP International Phils., Inc. is
hereby ordered to return the amount of P4,769,954.32 to First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance
Corporations deposit account.

SO ORDERED.
 Pursuant to Section 3, Rule III of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended, subject to
the conformity of the Justice who penned the aforequoted Decision, let this case be consolidated with CA-G.R. SP
No. 68465.

SO ORDERED.[24]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration[25] of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 68465 while respondent surety sought to modify
the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 69441 to include an award of interest on the amount ordered returned to it by the appellate court.[26]

On 17 August 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed consolidated amended decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves as follows:

1. In CA-G.R. SP No. 68465.

For lack of merit, private respondents motion for reconsideration of the decision dated February 28, 2005 is
DENIED. However, the dispositive portion of said decision is MODIFIED, such that it shall now read:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated December 10, 2001 of the
Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City (Branch 260) and the writ of execution issued pursuant
thereto are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

2. In CA-G.R. SP No. 69441

Petitioners motion for partial reconsideration of the decision dated March 31, 2005 is GRANTED. The first
paragraph of the dispositive portion of said decision shall now read:

WHEREFORE, the petition is partly granted and the Order dated February 19, 2002 is
nullified. Respondent LEP International Phils., Inc. is hereby ordered to return the amount of
P4,769,954.32 to petitioner First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporations deposit account plus
interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from filing of the petition until finality of this
judgment, after which the interest shall be at the rate of 12% per annum until said amount is fully
deposited.

For lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent LEP International Phils., Inc. is
DENIED.

SO ORDERED.[27]

Hence, the instant petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals decision erred in holding that no good reasons existed to
warrant the discretionary execution of the RTC decision and that it would render nugatory the RTC judgment to the prejudice of
petitioner. The petition also assails the appellate courts ruling that the filing of a motion for reconsideration was not a condition
precedent to the filing of respondents petition for certiorari. Last, the petition reiterates the claim that petitioner was neither in
possession nor in control of the goods subject of respondent Gateways counterclaim.[28]
Respondent Gateway filed a motion, praying that it be excused from filing a comment on the petition on the ground that it had filed a
petition for voluntary insolvency before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, where an order was issued declaring respondent Gateway as
insolvent and forbidding the transfer of its property. Petitioner did not oppose respondent Gateways motion and in a Resolution

dated 26 September 2007, the Court granted said motion.[29]

At the core of the instant petition is the question of whether a sufficient ground exists warranting the discretionary execution of the
RTC decision. In granting petitioners motion for execution pending appeal, the RTC gave weight to the fact that the case had been
pending since 1997 and the alleged admission of liability on the part of respondent Gateway, which the Court of Appeals found to be
unsupported by the evidence on record. Petitioner now counters that only the exact amount of liability is disputed but not respondents
admission of liability. It claims that in the certiorari proceeding, even the Court of Appeals acknowledged that respondent Gateway
did admit owing petitioner the principal amount of P4,138,864.70 and not P4,769,954.32 which was the amount garnished pursuant to
the writ of execution and the dispositive portion of the RTC decision.

The rule on execution pending appeal, which is now termed discretionary execution under Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of
Court, must be strictly construed being an exception to the general rule.[30] Discretionary execution of appealed judgments may be
allowed upon concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse
party; (b) there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order. The
yardstick remains the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh
the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer, should the appealed judgment be reversed later. Since the execution of a
judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence of good reasons is essential.[31]

The Rules of Court does not state, enumerate, or give examples of good reasons to justify execution. The determination of
what is a good reason must, necessarily, be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In other words, the issuance of the writ

of execution must necessarily be controlled by the judgment of the judge in accordance with his own conscience and by a sense of
justice and equity, free from the control of anothers judgment or conscience. It must be so for discretion implies the absence of a hard
and fast rule.[32]

The grounds cited by the RTC in allowing the discretionary execution of its decision cannot be considered good reasons. The
alleged admission by respondent Gateway of its liability is more apparent than real because the issue of liability is precisely the reason
the case was elevated on appeal. The exact amount of respondent Gateways liability to petitioner remains under dispute even if, as

claimed by petitioner, the evidence on record indicates that respondent Gateways obligation is almost a certainty. Precisely the appeal
process must be allowed to take its course all the way to the finality of judgment to determine once and for all the incidents of the suit.

The fact alone that in the certiorari proceeding, the Court of Appeals also found respondent Gateway to have admitted its
liability for a different amount is not automatically considered as a good reason to order discretionary execution. Petitioner is
preempting the Court of Appeals review of the RTC decision in insisting that in the certiorari proceeding, the Court of Appeals should

have simply ordered the discretionary execution of the amount which it found to have been admitted by respondent Gateway.

Another factor that militates against petitioners claim that any judgment in its favor may become illusory if execution
pending appeal is not allowed is the fact that petitioner is considered a secured creditor on account of the counterbond posted by
respondent surety. The said counterbond, posted as it was to discharge the attachment in favor of petitioner, serves as security for the
payment of any judgment that petitioner may recover in the instant action.[33] Following its argument that respondent Gateways
obligation to petitioner is almost a certainty, petitioner will not find it hard to recover its monetary claim once final judgment is
rendered in its favor because petitioner can certainly garnish the counterbond.

As regards petitioners assigned error that there was no basis for the Court of Appeals to declare that respondent Gateways
principal liability would be offset by its counterclaim for the recovery of the goods allegedly held by petitioner, suffice it to say that
this controversy should be properly ventilated on appeal. All the more, petitioners prayer for execution pending appeal should be
denied because there are questions in the instant controversy, other than the issue of respondent Gateways principal liability, that need
to be resolved on appeal. Thus, the order allowing execution pending appeal would render nugatory the decision of the Court of
Appeals on the appeal.

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration was not a
requirement for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has not been given,
through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when
the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency.[34]

Respondent Gateways explanation on this aspect, which the Court of Appeals found sufficient, is that the assailed order of
discretionary execution was already being implemented, thereby leaving it with no plain, speedy and adequate remedy other than to
file the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Court of Appeals. Considering the urgency of the matter, the
Court finds that under the circumstances of the case, the filing of a motion for reconsideration was properly dispensed with, more so

since the issue of validity of the execution pending appeal is a pure question of law.

For respondent suretys part, it did observe the requirement of a motion for reconsideration. Before filing the petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals, respondent surety filed a motion to set aside the 10 December 2001 Order of Judge Ricafort
and to quash the writ of execution. However, the RTC denied the motion, prompting respondent surety to elevate the matter to the

Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was the only plain speedy and adequate remedy available to it.

Thus, the Court sustains the lifting of the garnishment on the amount of P4,769,954.32 under respondent suretys deposit
account in Banco de Oro. However, the Court of Appeals award of interest on said amount has no legal or factual basis and must be
deleted. Notably, said amount was garnished by virtue of a court order. Petitioner cannot be faulted and be held liable for the errors

committed by the RTC and the sheriffs concerned in the discretionary execution.[35]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated 17 August 2006 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68465 and CA-G.R. SP No. 69441 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
interest imposed on the amount to be refunded to respondent First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.
 DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(On Official Leave)

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
 *
Additional member per res dated 10 March 2009 in lieu of J. Quisumbing who is on official business.
**
Additional member per Special Order No. 600 in lieu of J. Carpio Morales who is on official business.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 16-41.
[2]
Dated 17 August 2006 and penned by Edgardo P. Cruz, J., Chairman of the Special Former First Division, and concurred in
by Rosmari D. Carandang and Jose C. Mendoza, JJ.; id. at 8-13.
[3]
Id. at 84; Penned by Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort.
[4]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 68465) pp. 60-62.
[5]
Id. at 130-132.
[6]
Id. at 26-28.
[7]
Id. at 27-28.
[8]
Id. at 455-58.
[9]
Id. at 29.
[10]
Id. at 43.
[11]
Rollo, p. 84.
[12]
Id. at 85-86.
[13]
Id. at 87.
[14]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 68465) p. 192.
[15]
Id. at 192-193.
[16]
Id. at 5-20.
[17]
Id. at 12-18.
[18]
Id. at 185.
[19]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 69441) pp. 24-25.
[20]
Rollo, p. 523-525.
[21]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 69441) p.179.
[22]
Id. at 185.
[23]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 69441), pp. 129-139.
[24]
Id. at 138-139.
[25]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 68465) pp. 212-228.
[26]
CA rollo (CA-G.R SP No. 69441) p. 148; Motion for Partial Reconsideration of First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance
Corporation.
[27]
Rollo, pp. 12-13.
 [28]
Id. at 25.
[29]
Id. at 536-537.
[30]
Planters Products Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 615, 624 (1999).
[31]
Manacop v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 162814-17, 25 August 2005, 468 SCRA 256, citing Maceda, Jr. v.
Development Bank of the Philippines, 372 Phil. 107, 117; 313 SCRA 233, 242 ; Diesel Construction Company, Inc. v. Jollibee Foods
Corp., 380 Phil. 813, 829; 323 SCRA 844, 859 (2000); Flexo Manufacturing Corporation v. Columbus Foods, Inc. and Pacific Meat
Company, Inc., G.R. No. 164857, 11 April 2005, 455 SCRA 272.
[32]
Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Toh, Sr., 452 Phil. 734, 742-743 (2003), citing City of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-35253, 26 July 1976, 72 SCRA 98, 103-104.
[33]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 57, Section 12 states: Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. After a writ of
attachment has been enforced, the party whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his behalf, may move for the
discharge of the attachment wholly or in part on the security given. x x x In either case, the cash deposit or the counter-bond shall
secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
[34]
Government of the United States of America v. Puruganan, 438 Phil. 417, 437 (2003).
[35]
See Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 949 (2002).