Immediate execution of the RTC decision on appeal to the CA or SC

In the case of ALPA-PCM, Inc., vs. Bulasao1, the court, in explaining the immediate execution of the RTC
decision on appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme court, stated that:

After affirming the RTCs power to allow execution, we now consider ALPA-PCMs claim that the
RTC must nonetheless cite good reasons justifying execution, citing as basis Section 2, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court.

The Court reminds ALPA-PCM, particularly its counsel, Atty. Guillermo R. Bandonil, Jr., that this
case originated from the complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the Bulasaos against it. Actions
for unlawful detainer are governed primarily by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and
suppletorily by the Rules of Court. Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure states
that:

Sec. 21. Appeal. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this
Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately
executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section
10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has decreed the immediately executory
nature of decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, involving cases
falling under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. It requires no further justification or
even good reasons for the RTC to authorize execution, even if an appeal has already been filed
before the CA. Indeed, the provision does not even require a bond to be filed by the prevailing
party to allow execution to proceed. The rationale for this is the objective of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases governed
by it. This objective provides the good reason that justifies immediate execution of the decision,
if the standards of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on execution pending appeal, as what
ALPA-PCM insists, are considered.

Section 21, rule 70 is applicable only on judgment on the merits of ejectment case

The courts interpretation of Rule 70, Section 21 was discussed in the case of Sarmiento vs. Zaratan 2 and
are as follows:

The invocation of petitioner of the provisions of Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which
runs:

Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.- 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.

To justify the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal in this case is misplaced.

A closer examination of the above-quoted provision reveals that said provision applies to decision
of the RTC rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming the decision of the MeTC. In the case at
bar, the RTC order was an order dismissing respondents appeal based on technicality. It did not
resolve substantive matters delving on the merits of the parties claim in the ejectment case. Thus,

1
ALPA-PCM, Inc. vs. Bulasao, G.R. No. 197124, March 19, 2012
2
Sarmiento vs. Zaratan, GR. No. 167471, February 5, 2007
the case brought to the Court of Appeals was the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the
required memorandum within the period provided by law, and not on the merits of the ejectment
case.