9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 357

Gan vs. Reyes
*
G.R. No. 145527. May 28, 2002.

AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN, petitioner, vs.

HON. ANTONIO C. REYES, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 61, Baguio City,
ALBERT G. TOLENTINO, in his capacity as
RTC Sheriff of Baguio City, and
FRANCHESKA JOY C. PONDEVIDA, assisted
by BERNADETTE C. PONDEVIDA,
respondents.

Actions; Parent and Child; Support; Unless

ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for
support are immediately executory and cannot be
stayed by an appeal, which is an exception to the
general rule which provides that the taking of an
appeal stays the execution of the judgment and that
advance executions will only be allowed if there are
urgent reasons therefor.—Section 4, Rule 39, of the
Rules of Court clearly states that, unless ordered by
the trial court, judgments in actions for support are
immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an
appeal. This is an exception to the general rule
which provides that the taking of an appeal stays
the execution of the judgment and that advance
executions will only be allowed if there are urgent
reasons therefor. The aforesaid provision
peremptorily calls for immediate execution of all
judgments for support and makes no distinction
between those which are the subject of an appeal
and those which are not. To consider then
petitioner’s argument that there should be good
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

reasons for the advance execution of a judgment

would violate the clear and explicit language of the
rule mandating immediate execution.

______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gan vs. Reyes

Statutory Construction; To the plain words of a

legal provision, courts should make no further
explanation—absoluta sententia expositore non
indiget.—Petitioner is reminded that to the plain
words of a legal provision we should make no further
explanation. Absoluta sententia expositore non
indiget. Indeed, the interpretation which petitioner
attempts to foist upon us would only lead to
absurdity, its acceptance negating the plain meaning
of the provision subject of the petition.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; A
technicality should be an aid to justice and not its
great hindrance and chief enemy.—We are not
intimating that in every case the right to notice of
hearing can be disregarded. That is not so. It
appears in this case that there has been too much
temporizing in the execution of the writ which must
not be allowed to thwart the constitutional mandate
for speedy disposition of cases. As has been said, a
technicality should be an aid to justice and not its
great hindrance and chief enemy. Truly, if the writ
of execution would be voided on this ground alone,
then procedural rules which were primarily drafted
to protect parties in the realm of constitutional
guarantees would acquire a new sanctity at the
expense of equity and justice.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

Support; In all cases involving a child, his

interest and welfare are always the paramount
concerns.—In all cases involving a child, his interest
and welfare are always the paramount concerns.
There may be instances where, in view of the
poverty of the child, it would be a travesty of justice
to refuse him support until the decision of the trial
court attains finality while time continues to slip
away. An excerpt from the early case of De Leon v.
Soriano is relevant, thus: The money and property
adjudged for support and education should and must
be given presently and without delay because if it
had to wait the final judgment, the children may in
the meantime have suffered because of lack of food
or have missed and lost years in school because of
lack of funds. One cannot delay the payment of such
funds for support and education for the reason that
if paid long afterwards, however much the
accumulated amount, its payment cannot cure the
evil and repair the damage caused. The children
with such belated payment for support and
education cannot act as gluttons and eat voraciously
and unwisely, afterwards, to make up for the years
of hunger and starvation. Neither may they enrol in
several classes and schools and take up numerous
subjects all at once to make up for the years they
missed in school, due to non-payment of the funds
when needed.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision

of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

359

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 359

Gan vs. Reyes

     Fornier & Fornier Law Firm for petitioner.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

          Leyretana Law Office for private

respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Quite apprehensive that she would not be able

to send to school her three (3)-year old
daughter Francheska Joy S. Pondevida,
Bernadette S. Pondevida 1
wrote petitioner
Augustus Caezar R. Gan demanding support
for their “love child.” Petitioner, in his reply,
denied paternity of the child. An exasperated
Bernadette thereafter instituted in behalf of
her daughter a complaint against petitioner for2
support with prayer for support pendente lite.
Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground
that the complaint failed to state a cause of
action. He argued that since Francheska’s
certificate of birth indicated her father as
“UNKNOWN,” there was no legal 3
or factual
basis for the claim of support. His4 motion,
however, was denied by the trial court.
Despite denial of his motion, petitioner
failed to file his answer within the
reglementary period. Thus, on 19 January 2000
private respondent moved that petitioner be
declared in default, which motion was granted.
In its Order declaring petitioner in default the
trial court noted that petitioner’s Motion to
Admit Answer was filed more than ninety (90)
days after the expiration of the reglementary
period, and only after private respondent
moved that petitioner be declared in default.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also
denied. Hence, the court received the evidence
of private respondent ex parte.
After finding that the claim of filiation and
support was adequately proved, the trial court
rendered its Decision on 12 May 2000 ordering
petitioner to recognize private respondent
Francheska Joy S. Pondevida as his
illegitimate child and support her with
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

P20,000.00 every month to be paid on or before

the 15th of each month starting 15 April 2000.
Likewise petitioner was or-

______________

1 Also spelled “Augustus Caesar R. Gan;” Rollo, p. 39.

2 Id., pp. 58-67.
3 Id., pp. 70-77.
4 Id., p. 80.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

dered to pay Francheska Joy S. Pondevida the

accumulated arrears of P20,000.00 per month
from the day she was born, P50,000.00 as
attorney’s fees and P25,000.00 for expenses of
litigation, plus P20,000.00 on or before the 15th
of every month from 15 May 2000 as alimony
pendente lite should he desire to pursue
5
further
remedies against private respondent.
Forthwith, private respondent moved for
execution of the judgment of support, which the
trial court granted by issuing a writ of
execution, citing as reason therefor private6
respondent’s immediate need for schooling.
Pursuant to the writ, the sheriff levied upon a
motor vehicle, a Honda City, with Plate No.
UMT 884, registered in the name of “A.B.
Leasing & Fin. Corp., Leased to: G & G
Trading,” and found within the premises 7
of
petitioner’s warehouse in Caloocan City.
Meanwhile, petitioner appealed
8
the
Judgment to the Court of Appeals.
On 9 June 2000 petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the Court of
Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

the trial court for ordering the immediate

execution of the judgment. Petitioner averred
that the writ of execution was issued despite
the absence of a good reason for immediate
enforcement. Petitioner insisted that as the
judgment sought to be executed did not yet
attain finality there should be an exceptional
reason to warrant its execution. He further
alleged that the writ proceeded from an order
of default and a judgment rendered by the trial
court in complete disregard of his “highly
meritorious defense.” Finally, petitioner
impugned the validity of the writ as he argued
that it was issued without notice to him.
Petitioner stressed the fact that he received
copy of the motion for immediate execution
9
two
(2) weeks after its scheduled hearing.

______________

5 Decision penned by Executive Judge Antonio C. Reyes,

RTC-Br. 61, Baguio City; Id., pp. 108-116.
6 CA Rollo, p. 99.
7 Id., pp. 96-98.
8 Id., pp. 90-91.
9 Id., pp. 1-27.

361

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 361

Gan vs. Reyes

On 31 August 2000 the Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition on the ratiocination that
under Sec. 4, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure judgments for support are
immediately executory and cannot be stayed by
an appeal. Thus, it did not help petitioner any
to argue that there were no good reasons to
support its immediate execution. The second
challenge hurled against the validity of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

writ concerning the lack of notice and hearing

was likewise dismissed with the appeals court
favoring substantial justice over technicalities.
Lastly, petitioner’s justification for belatedly
filing his answer, i.e., miscommunication with
his lawyer, was disregarded since it fell short of
the statutory requirements of “fraud,
10
accident,
mistake or excusable negligence.”
His motion for reconsideration having been
denied, petitioner came to us impugning the
dismissal of his petition for certiorari.
Petitioner argues that under the rules a
judgment for support which is subject of an
appeal cannot be executed absent any good
reason for its immediate execution. Petitioner
likewise attacks the validity of the writ
asserting that it was issued in violation of his
right to notice and hearing. Petitioner also
seeks the setting aside of the default order and
the judgment rendered thereafter for the
reason that should he be allowed to prove his
defense of adultery, the11 claim of support would
be most likely denied. Petitioner claims that
in an action by a child against his putative
father, adultery of the child’s mother would be
a valid defense to show that the child is a fruit
of adulterous relations for, in such case, it
would not be the child of the defendant and
therefore not entitled to support.
Parenthetically, how could he be allowed to
prove the defense of adultery when it was not
even hinted that he was married to the mother
of Francheska Joy. Petitioner consents to
submit to Dioxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing
to resolve the issue of paternity, which
12
test he
claims has a reputation for accuracy.
A careful review of the facts and
circumstances of this case fails to persuade this
Court to brand the issuance of the writ of
execu-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

______________

10 Decision penned by Associate Justice Romeo A.

Brawner and concurred in by Associate Justices Quirino D.
Abad Santos, Jr. and Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
11 Id,. pp. 13-36.
12 Id., pp. 600-608.

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

tion by the trial court and affirmed by the

Court of Appeals with the vice of grave abuse of
discretion. There is no evidence indeed to
justify the setting aside of the writ on the
ground that it was issued beyond the legitimate
bounds of judicial discretion.
Section 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court
clearly states that, unless ordered by the trial
court, judgments in actions for support are
immediately executory and cannot be stayed by
an appeal. This is an exception to the general
rule which provides that the taking of an
appeal stays the execution of the judgment and
that advance executions will only be allowed if
there are urgent reasons therefor. The
aforesaid provision peremptorily calls for
immediate execution of all judgments for
support and makes no distinction between
those which are the subject of an appeal and
those which are not. To consider then
petitioner’s argument that there should be good
reasons for the advance execution of a
judgment would violate the clear and explicit
language of the rule mandating immediate
execution.
Petitioner is reminded that to the plain
words of a legal provision we should make no
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

further explanation. Absoluta sententia

expositore non indiget. Indeed, the
interpretation which petitioner attempts to
foist upon us would only lead to absurdity, its
acceptance negating the plain meaning of the
provision subject of the petition.
Petitioner would also have us annul the writ
of execution on the ground that he was not
notified of its issuance. We are unable to accept
such a plea for enough has been done by
petitioner to delay the execution of the writ. As
the records show, in partial fulfillment of the
writ of execution petitioner surrendered a
sedan which apparently was not his as it was
later ordered released to a third
13
party who laid
claim over the levied vehicle. Also, petitioner
filed before the Court of Appeals a Motion for
Leave to Deposit in Court Support Pendente
Lite promising to deposit the amount due as
support every 15th of the month, but to date
has not deposited any

______________

13 Sheriff ’s Report dated 31 October 2000 reveals that

the levied property was released in favor of A & B Leasing
and Finance Corp.; id., p. 201.

363

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 363

Gan vs. Reyes

amount in 14 complete disavowal of his

undertaking. He was not even deterred from
appealing before us and needlessly taking up
our time and energy by posing legal questions
that can be characterized, at best, as flimsy
and trivial. We are thus not prepared to
abrogate the writ of execution issued in favor of
private respondent for substantial justice
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

would be better served if petitioner be

precluded from interposing another barrier to
the immediate execution of the support
judgment.
We are not intimating that in every case the
right to notice of hearing can be disregarded.
That is not so. It appears in this case that there
has been too much temporizing in the execution
of the writ which must not be allowed to thwart
the constitutional mandate for speedy
disposition of cases. As has been said, a
technicality should be an aid to justice15
and not
its great hindrance and chief enemy. Truly, if
the writ of execution would be voided on this
ground alone, then procedural rules which were
primarily drafted to protect parties in the
realm of constitutional guarantees would
acquire a new sanctity at the expense of equity
and justice.
Lastly, we note that no useful purpose would
be served if we dwell on petitioner’s arguments
concerning the validity of the judgment by
default and his insistence that he be subjected,
together with private respondent Bernadette C.
Pondevida to DNA testing to settle the issue of
paternity. The futility of his arguments is very
apparent. It is not for us at this instance to
review or revise the Decision rendered by the
trial court for to do so would pre-empt the
decision which may be rendered by the Court of
Appeals in the main case for support.
In all cases involving a child, his interest
and welfare are always the paramount
concerns. There may be instances where, in
view of the poverty of the child, it would be a
travesty of justice to refuse him support until
the decision of the trial court attains finality
while time continues to slip away. An excerpt 16
from the early case of De Leon v. Soriano is
relevant, thus:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

______________

14 Id., pp. 182-189.

15 Pallada v. RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, 364 Phil. 81;
304 SCRA 440 (1999).
16 95 Phil. 806 (1954).

364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Gan vs. Reyes

The money and property adjudged for support and

education should and must be given presently and
without delay because if it had to wait the final
judgment, the children may in the meantime have
suffered because of lack of food or have missed and
lost years in school because of lack of funds. One
cannot delay the payment of such funds for support
and education for the reason that if paid long
afterwards, however much the accumulated amount,
its payment cannot cure the evil and repair the
damage caused. The children with such belated
payment for support and education cannot act as
gluttons and eat voraciously and unwisely,
afterwards, to make up for the years of hunger and
starvation. Neither may they enrol in several classes
and schools and take up numerous subjects all at
once to make up for the years they missed in school,
due to non-payment of the funds when needed.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in

the Decision sought to be reviewed, the instant
petition is DENIED. The 31 August 2000
Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari instituted by petitioner
Augustus Caezar C. Gan and upholding the
validity of the 2 June 2000 Writ of Execution
issued by the Regional Trial Court-Br. 61,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382

Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 4234-R, is

AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

     Mendoza, Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr. and

Corona, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The fact that the father of an

illegitimate child has recognized the minor
child may be a ground for ordering him to give
support to the latter, but not for giving him
custody of the child. (David vs. Court of
Appeals, 250 SCRA 82 [1995])
While the right of a natural parent to name
the child is recognized, guaranteed and
protected under the law, the so-called right of
an adoptive parent to re-name an adopted child
by virtue or as a consequence of adoption, even
for the most noble intentions and moving
supplications, is unheard of in law and
consequently cannot be favorably considered.
(Republic vs. Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509 [1996])

——o0o——

365

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5778a98f14c60a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12