Restitution after reversal of executed judgment
SEC. 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances. (Emphasis ours)
The Rules of Court provides for restitution according to equity, in case the
executed judgment is reversed on appeal.[1] When the executed decision
is reversed, the premature execution is considered to have lost its legal
bases.[2] The situation necessarily requires equitable restitution to
the party prejudiced thereby.[3] The phrase "on appeal or otherwise" in
Section 5 of Rule 39 specifically permits the application of restitution or
reparation in cases where a judgment is reversed or annulled, not only on
appeal but also through some other appropriate action filed for that
purpose.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stressed in the early case
of Po Pauco v. Tan Junco[4] that in a restitution case, a
party who received by means of a judgment cannot be treated as a wrong-doer
for causing execution to issue. The judgment protects him while it remains in
force. It may seem a hardship to the claimant in such a judgment that under
it, his property may be sold for greatly less than its value, and his right of
restitution be limited to what came into the hands of the defendant. But such
hardship, when it occurs, will generally, if not always, be the result of his
own acts. If, by failing to appeal, or to obtain
a supersedeas on an appeal, he permits the judgment to
remain in force and enforceable, he can hardly complain that the other party
proceeds to enforce it.[5]
[1] Legaspi v. Spouses Ong, 498 Phil. 167, 189 (2005).
[2] Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, 675 Phil. 474 578 (2011)
[3] Id.
[4] 49 Phil. 349 (1926).
[5] Id. at 357.
