JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: “GOOD REASONS” AS GROUND FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL

In Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, January 20, 2010, 610 SCRA 377, 384-385, citing Flexo Manufacturing Corporation v. Columbus Foods, Inc.,  495 Phil. 254, 260 (2005) and Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay v. National Power Corp., G.R. No. 141447, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 401, 417. The Supreme Court held: 

          x x x “Good reasons,” it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity.

           “Good reason” as required by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not necessarily mean unassailable and flawless basis but at the very least, it must be on solid footing.   Dire financial conditions of the plaintiffs supported by mere self-serving statements as “good reason” for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal does not stand on solid footing.  It does not even stand on its own (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS. JUDGWE SANTOS ADIONG, July 27, 2011 VILLARAMA, JR., J.).