FACTS:

The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), a government-owned and controlled corporation, filed a complaint for expropriation against the Heirs of Antonina Rabie (respondents) to acquire a portion of their residential lot for an access road to the Caliraya Hydro Electric Power Plant. The trial court granted the expropriation and ordered NAPOCOR to pay just compensation and rentals to the respondents. NAPOCOR's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting respondents to file a motion for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted. A writ of execution was issued, resulting in the garnishment of NAPOCOR's funds. Dissatisfied, NAPOCOR filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but the petition was dismissed. NAPOCOR subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, the existence of good reasons for execution pending appeal, and the garnishment of NAPOCOR's funds.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the motion for discretionary execution.

2. Whether discretionary execution applies to eminent domain proceedings.

3. Whether the funds of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) can be garnished or levied in execution.

4. Whether the trial court can grant discretionary execution pending appeal.

RULING:

1. The trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the motion for discretionary execution. Execution pending appeal is allowed upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. The trial court still had jurisdiction when respondents filed their motion for execution pending appeal, as it was filed before the lapse of the period to file an appeal. Prior to the transmittal of the records, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction and may issue an order for execution pending appeal.

2. Discretionary execution does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. The Court held that discretionary execution is not applicable to expropriation proceedings. Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments in order to ensure that the functions and public services rendered by the State are not paralyzed or disrupted.

3. The funds of the PPA cannot be garnished or levied in execution. The PPA is a government instrumentality and its funds partake of government funds. As such, they are exempt from execution, whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending appeal.

4. The trial court cannot grant discretionary execution pending appeal. Execution pending appeal requires the observance of certain requisites, including the existence of good reasons for the issuance of the writ. The trial court failed to specify and discuss any good reason for granting execution pending appeal. Moreover, the execution of judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule and must be strictly construed. In this case, the trial court granted the motion for execution pending appeal without identifying and discussing any alleged good reasons. Therefore, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting discretionary execution without stating and explaining clearly the basis for it.

PRINCIPLES:

• Execution pending appeal, or discretionary execution, is allowed upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.

• The trial court has jurisdiction over the case and may issue an order for execution pending appeal prior to the transmittal of the records.

• Discretionary execution does not apply to eminent domain proceedings.

• Government funds and properties are exempt from execution whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending appeal.

• Government properties are exempt from execution.

• Execution pending appeal requires the existence of good reasons, which must be strictly construed.

• The trial court should make a finding on whether the allegations in a motion for execution pending appeal constitute good reasons as required by the rules.