CIVIL PROCEDURE; Order granting Motion for Execution Pending Appeal Must State the Good Reason/s Therefor

In Carpio v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 183102, 27 February 2013, the Supreme Court held that when a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal is granted by the trial court, the said court must state or indicate the good reasons therefor in its order, otherwise the issuance of a writ pending appeal will be void and of no effect.

“In any case, we proceed to rule that because the writ of execution was void, all actions and proceedings conducted pursuant to it were also void and of no legal effect. To recall, this Court affirmed the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 84632, annulling the RTC's Omnibus Order granting the Motion for Immediate Execution pending appeal. We affirmed the CA Decision because of the RTC's failure to state any reason, much less good reason, for the issuance thereof as required under Section 2, Rule 39. In the exercise by the trial court of its discretionary power to issue a writ of execution pending appeal, we emphasize the need for strict compliance with the requirement for the statement of a good reason, because execution pending appeal is the exception rather than the rule.

Since the writ of execution was manifestly void for having been issued without compliance with the rules, it is without any legal effect. In other words, it is as if no writ was issued at all. Consequently, all actions taken pursuant to the void writ of execution must be deemed to have not been taken and to have had no effect. Otherwise, the Court would be sanctioning a violation of the right to due process of the judgment debtors — respondent-spouses herein.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)