Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Opposition To Motion

    Uploaded by

    Dales Batoctoy
    The document is an opposition filed by the Defendant-Appellant to the Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for issuance of a writ of execution and withdrawal of cash deposit related to a civil case. The Defendant argues that immediate execution is inequitable and will cause serious harm, as it would disrupt the schooling of orphaned students and paying pupils who attend the school on the premises. The Defendant requests that the court deny the Plaintiff's motion and not allow immediate execution of the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Opposition To Motion

    Uploaded by

    Dales Batoctoy
    1K views3 pages
    The document is an opposition filed by the Defendant-Appellant to the Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for issuance of a writ of execution and withdrawal of cash deposit related to a civil case. The Defendant argues that immediate execution is inequitable and will cause serious harm, as it would disrupt the schooling of orphaned students and paying pupils who attend the school on the premises. The Defendant requests that the court deny the Plaintiff's motion and not allow immediate execution of the judgment.

    Original Description:

    Sample

    Original Title

    Opposition to Motion

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is an opposition filed by the Defendant-Appellant to the Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for issuance of a writ of execution and withdrawal of cash deposit related to a civil case. The Defendant argues that immediate execution is inequitable and will cause serious harm, as it would disrupt the schooling of orphaned students and paying pupils who attend the school on the premises. The Defendant requests that the court deny the Plaintiff's motion and not allow immediate execution of the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views3 pages

    Opposition To Motion

    Uploaded by

    Dales Batoctoy
    The document is an opposition filed by the Defendant-Appellant to the Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for issuance of a writ of execution and withdrawal of cash deposit related to a civil case. The Defendant argues that immediate execution is inequitable and will cause serious harm, as it would disrupt the schooling of orphaned students and paying pupils who attend the school on the premises. The Defendant requests that the court deny the Plaintiff's motion and not allow immediate execution of the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses an opposition filed against a motion for issuance of a writ of execution and withdrawal of cash deposit in a civil case.

    The opposition is arguing that circumstances require staying the execution of the judgment based on supervening events and that there is no compelling urgency for immediate execution.

    The opposition cites the rulings in Benedicto v. Court of Appeals and Laurel v. Abalos which allow staying execution where circumstances make immediate execution inequitable or not justified.

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    7th Judicial Region


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    Branch 55
    Mandaue City

    DAVID LIVINGSTONE MISSIONARY


    FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,

    -versus- Civil Case No. MAN-6169-R


    Civil Case No. 649-R

    LIVINGSTONE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY


    Defendant-Appellant.

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

    OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR


    ISSUANCE OFWRIT OF EXECUTION AND FOR
    WITHDRAWAL OF CASH DEPOSIT

    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, thru counsel unto the Honorable Court,


    respectfully moves to oppose the issuance of the writ of execution and
    withdrawal of cash deposit dated January 25, 2010 and in support thereof
    avers that:

    1. On December 17, 2009, the Honorable Court rendered its


    decision affirming en toto the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
    of Liloan-Compostela in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

    2. It is true that Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides


    that the judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be
    immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be
    taken therefrom. However, the Court ruled in Benedicto v. Court of Appeals,
    G.R. No. 157604, October 19, 2005, that:
    On appeal the appellate court may stay the said
    writ should circumstances so require. x x x even
    if RTC judgments in unlawful detainer cases are
    immediately executory, preliminary injunction may
    still be granted. (emphasis ours)

    3. Furthermore, it is worthy to note that in Laurel v. Abalos, 140


    Phil. 532, the Court stressed that:

    Where supervening events (occurring subsequent to


    the judgment) bring about a material change in the
    situation of the parties which makes the execution
    inequitable, or where there is no compelling
    urgency for the execution because it is not
    justified by the prevailing circumstances, the
    court may stay immediate execution of the
    judgment. (emphasis ours)

    4. Based on the foregoing earlier ruling in Laurel, the Court also


    deemed it just and equitable to stay the execution of the RTC judgment in an
    ejectment case against the City of Naga, in City of Naga v. Asuncion, G.R.
    No. 174042, July 9, 2008, to wit:

    Needless to reiterate, grave and irreparable injury


    will be inflicted on the City of Naga by the
    immediate execution of the June 20, 2005 RTC
    Decision. x x x the people of Naga would be
    deprived of access to basic social services. It should
    not be forgotten that the land subject of the ejectment
    case houses government offices which perform
    important functions vital to the orderly operation of
    the local government. x x x (emphasis ours)

    5. In the case at bar, the issuance of the writ applied for will bring
    about serious, disastrous and irreparable damage, not only to the Defendant,
    but of equal importance, to the very orphans whom the Plaintiff itself claims
    to advocate as well as to the paying students or pupils. Asking the Defendant
    to vacate the premises is in effect dislocating the students and their classes.
    Unnecessary disruption of schools scheduled activities will be to the
    students detriments. The orphans and paying students or pupils will be
    deprived of a school within the orphanage itself and will be compelled to go
    to public schools, the nearest of which is a 45-minute walk from the
    orphanage. Hence, there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it
    is not justified by the prevailing circumstances.

    WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court


    to DENY the motion for issuance of the writ of execution and withdrawal of
    cash deposit. Other relief, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

    Cebu City, for Mandaue City, January 28, 2010.

    MIGUEL SAMUEL AQUILES E. DURAN


    PTR NO. 3612333/01-04-08/Cebu City
    IBP NO. 732289/01-04-08/Cebu
    Roll No. 52686
    Room 204, CRM Building
    Escario cor. Molave Sts., Lahug
    6000 Cebu City
    Philippines

    You might also like