Civil Procedure Rule 51

Judgment
Rule 51
JUDGMENT
You already know that the Court of Appeals operates by
division. There are more than 5 !usti"es there. #very division
is "omposed of $. The $ must be unanimous. %n "ase there is
no unanimity& there should be a spe"ial division of 5 to hear
the "ase all over again and the ma!ority rules. Although from
what % gathered sa CA& this is a far"e . A"tually& they do not
dis"uss it& they will !ust give it to the ponente. Tapos sabihin
mo '"on"ur.( )ihira lang talaga ang naga*parti"ipate unless
siguro malakas ka sa isang !usti"e and then mag*dissent para
magkaroon ng division of 5. That is not really the intention of
the of the law.
+et(s go ba"k to what we were saying before under Rule
$,. #very de"ision or resolution of a "ourt shall "learly and
distin"tly state the fa"ts and the law on whi"h it is based. %f a
de"ision does not state its basis& it is a SIN PERJUICIO
!udgment. That is not a valid !udgment. The re-uirement
applies to all "ourts whether .TC& RTC& or CA. This is
emphasi/ed again in 0e"tion 51
Sec. 5. Form of decision. - Every
decision or fnal resolution of te court
in a!!ealed cases sall clearly and
distinctly state te fndin"s of fact and
te conclusions of la# on #ic it is
$ased% #ic &ay $e contained in te
decision or fnal resolution itself% or
ado!ted fro& tose set fort in te
decision% order% or resolution a!!ealed
fro&. 'Sec. ()% *+ *l". 1,-. 'n.
The CA must state its 2ndings and "on"lusions or
a""ording to 0e"tion 5 it may simply adopt the 2ndings and
"on"lusions set forth in the de"ision or order appealed from.
%f the CA is going to a3rm the !udgment of the RTC& it may
simply "opy or adopt the 2ndings and "on"lusions of the RTC.
%t is "alled a 4.#.5RA678. 7#C%0%569.
%f you will look at 0e"tion 5& it states that the provision is
taken from 0e"tion :& ); 1<=. %t is taken from the Judi"iary
+aw.
%s this provision not an invitation to la/iness on the part
of the CA !usti"es> %f the CA will a3rm the !udgment of the
RTC& the work is easier be"ause it may simply adopt on its
own the 2ndings of the RTC. %f the CA would reverse the
de"ision& the !ob would be more di3"ult& be"ause it would
write an entirely new de"ision to rebut or dispute the 2ndings
of the RTC. This is why when this provision "ame out in the
Judi"iary +aw& there was a sort of fear that this might be the
"ause of la/iness.
The 0C& well aware of that danger& "lari2es in one "ase
that memorandum de"isions are not allowed in all "ases. The
CA is only allowed to render a memorandum de"ision in
simple "ases espe"ially when the appeal is dilatory and there
is nothing wrong in the appealed de"ision. )ut if the "ase is
"ompli"ated or "omple?& even if CA would a3rm the de"ision&
it "annot simply "opy the work of the RTC. %t should write its
own de"ision. The limitation or guidelines was issued by the
0C pre"isely to avoid the danger of la/iness on the part of CA
!usti"es. The 0C said in the "ase of
/R0N12S13 vs. +ERMS4U5
167 S1R0 7,(
8E5D9 4The Court 2nds it ne"essary to
emphasi/e that the memorandum de"ision
should be sparingly used lest it be"ome an
addi"tive e?"use for !udi"ial sloth. %t is an
additional "ondition for its validity that this kind
of de"ision may be resorted to only in "ases
where the fa"ts are in the main a""epted by
both parties or easily determinable by the !udge
and there are no do"trinal "ompli"ations
involved that will re-uire an e?tended
dis"ussion of the laws involved. The
memorandum de"ision may be employed in
simple litigations only& su"h as ordinary
"olle"tion "ases& where the appeal is obviously
groundless and deserves no more than the time
needed to dismiss it.9
@1 Ahen is a "ase deemed submitted for !udgment>
A1 0e"tion 1 of Rule 511
Sec. 1. When case deemed submitted
for judment. - 0 case sall $e dee&ed
su$&itted for :ud"&ent9
0. In Ordinary appeals. -
1. ;ere no earin" on te
&erits of te &ain case is eld% u!on
te flin" of te last !leadin"% $rief% or
&e&orandu& re<uired $y te Rules or
$y te court itself% or te e=!iration of
te !eriod for its flin".
,. ;ere suc a earin" is eld%
u!on its ter&ination or u!on te flin"
of te last !leadin" or &e&orandu&
as &ay $e re<uired or !er&itted to $e
fled $y te court% or te e=!iration of
te !eriod for its flin".
*. In original actions and
petitions for review. -
1. ;ere no co&&ent is fled%
u!on te e=!iration of te !eriod to
co&&ent.
,. ;ere no earin" is eld%
u!on te flin" of te last !leadin"
re<uired or !er&itted to $e fled $y
te court% or te e=!iration of te
!eriod for its flin".
,,
Civil Procedure Rule 51
Judgment
7. ;ere a earin" on te &erits
of te &ain case is eld% u!on its
ter&ination or u!on te flin" of te
last !leadin" or &e&orandu& as &ay
$e re<uired or !er&itted to $e fled $y
te court% or te e=!iration of te
!eriod for its flin". 'n.
Sec. ,. !" #hom rendered. - Te
:ud"&ent sall $e rendered $y te
&e&$ers of te court #o
!artici!ated in te deli$eration on te
&erits of te case $efore its
assi"n&ent to a &e&$er for te
#ritin" of te decision. 'n.
Sec. 7. $uorum and votin in the
court. - Te !artici!ation of all tree
Justices of a division sall $e
necessary at te deli$eration and te
unani&ous vote of te tree Justices
sall $e re<uired for te
!ronounce&ent of a :ud"&ent or fnal
resolution. 2f te tree Justices do not
reac a unani&ous vote% te cler>
sall enter te votes of te dissentin"
Justices in te record. Tereafter% te
1air&an of te division sall refer
te case% to"eter #it te &inutes of
te deli$eration% to te +residin"
Justice #o sall desi"nate t#o
Justices cosen $y ra?e fro& a&on"
all te oter &e&$ers of te court to
sit te&!orarily #it te&% for&in" a
s!ecial division of fve Justices. Te
!artici!ation of all te fve &e&$ers
of te s!ecial division sall $e
necessary for te deli$eration
re<uired in section , of tis Rule and
te concurrence of a &a:ority of suc
division sall $e re<uired for te
!ronounce&ent of a :ud"&ent or fnal
resolution. ',a.
Sec. (. %is&osition of a case. - Te
1ourt of 0!!eals% in te e=ercise of its
a!!ellate :urisdiction% &ay a@r&%
reverse% or &odify te :ud"&ent or
fnal order a!!ealed fro&% and &ay
direct a ne# trial or furter
!roceedin"s to $e ad. '7a.
Sec. 5. Form of decision. - Every
decision or fnal resolution of te court
in a!!ealed cases sall clearly and
distinctly state te fndin"s of fact and
te conclusions of la# on #ic it is
$ased% #ic &ay $e contained in te
decision or fnal resolution itself% or
ado!ted fro& tose set fort in te
decision% order% or resolution a!!ealed
fro&. 'Sec. ()% *+ *l". 1,-. 'n.
Sec. A. 'arm(ess error. - No error in
eiter te ad&ission or te e=clusion
of evidence and no error or defect in
any rulin" or order or in anytin" done
or o&itted $y te trial court or $y any
of te !arties is "round for "rantin" a
ne# trial or for settin" aside%
&odifyin"% or oter#ise distur$in" a
:ud"&ent or order% unless refusal to
ta>e suc action a!!ears to te court
inconsistent #it su$stantial :ustice.
Te court at every sta"e of te
!roceedin" &ust disre"ard any error
or defect #ic does not aBect te
su$stantial ri"ts of te !arties. '5a.
Sec. 6. Judment #here there are
severa( &arties. - 2n all action or
!roceedin"s% an a!!ealed :ud"&ent
&ay $e a@r&ed as to so&e of te
a!!ellants% and reversed as to oters%
and te case sall tereafter $e
!roceeded #it% so far as necessary%
as if se!arate actions ad $een $e"un
and !rosecutedC and e=ecution of te
:ud"&ent of a@r&ance &ay $e ad
accordin"ly% and costs &ay $e
ad:ud"ed in suc cases% as te court
sall dee& !ro!er. 'A.
+et(s go to 0e"tion B.
@1 Ahen there are < or more plaintiCs or < or more
defendants in the "ases appealed& is it possible that the CA
will render de"ision for one plaintiC but against the other
plaintiCs& or in favor of one defendant and against the other>
A1 Y#0. %t is possible that one plaintiC will win& other
plaintiCs will lose espe"ially when the fa"ts are not identi"al.
This is also true in "ases of < or more defendants when ea"h
one interposes separate defenses. The defense of one may
be true& others may be false. %t is possible that one defendant
will win and other defendants will lose.
@1 0uppose there are < defendants in a "ase. All of them
lost. 7efendant A appealed. 7efendant ) did not appeal. 5n
appeal& defendant A won. Aill the appeal of A bene2t ) who
did not appeal>
A1 As a D#6#RA+ R8+#1 6o& the appeal would only
bene2t the appealing defendant. The !udgment be"omes 2nal
to those who did not appeal even if it is wrong.
#EC#;T%56 1 Ahen the +%A)%+%TY of the < parties are so
%6T#RTA%6#7 that it would be absurd that one of them will
win and the other will lose. Thus& the appeal by the appealing
party bene2ts his "o*party who did not appeal. This prin"iple
was laid down in some "ases. Among them is the "ase of
,B
Civil Procedure Rule 51
Judgment
UN2DERS05 M3T3RS 13R+. vs. 13URT
3/ 0++E05S
,)5 S1R0 (,E F1--,G
8E5D1 4%t is erroneous to rule that the
de"ision of the trial "ourt "ould be reversed as
to the appealing private respondent and
"ontinue in for"e against the other private
respondents. The latter "ould not remain bound
after the former had been releasedF although
the other private respondents had not !oined in
the appeal& the de"ision rendered by the
respondent "ourt inured to their bene2t. Ahen
the obligation of the other solidary debtors is so
dependent on that of their "o*solidary debtor&
the release of the one who appealed& provided
it be not on grounds personal to su"h appealing
private respondent& operates as well as to the
others who did not appeal. %t is for this reason&
that a de"ision or !udgment in favor of the
private respondent who appealed "an be
invoked as res !udi"ata by the other private
respondents.9 0o& their liabilities are so
intertwined.
#EA.;+# 1 .ayakin 0kywalker and 7arth .ort borrowed
money from @ui Don Jet. They bound themselves !ointly and
severally to pay the loan. There is only one promissory note&
one loan and both .ayakin and 7arth .ort signed. Their
"ommon defense is payment. )ut the trial "ourt ruled in favor
of the plaintiC G@ui Don JetH and ordered .ayakin and 7arth
.ort to pay. .ayakin appealed but 7arth .ort did not. 5n
appeal& CA de"ided in favor of .ayakin saying& )Wa(a nan
utan si *a"a+in ba dahi( ba"ad na,- Iow about 7arth .ort>
7arth .ort is also released.
This prin"iple is reiterated in the "ase of
10H0*0 vs. 13URT 3/ 0++E05S
,1- S1R0 561 F1--7G
8E5D1 4A reversal of a !udgment on appeal
is binding on the parties to the suit but does not
inure to the bene2t of parties who did not !oin in
the appeal Gas a general ruleH. The re"ogni/ed
e?"eption is when their rights and liabilities and
those of the parties appealing are so
inter#oven and dependent so as to be
inseparable& in whi"h "ase a reversal as to one
operates as a reversal to all.9
The rule is so similar in Criminal ;ro"edure. Ahen the
appeal of one a""used bene2ts his "o*a""used who did not
appeal espe"ially when the defense of su"h appealing
a""used is appli"able to him.
Sec. E. $uestions that ma" be decided. -
No error #ic does not aBect te
:urisdiction over te su$:ect &atter or te
validity of te :ud"&ent a!!ealed fro& or
te !roceedin"s terein #ill $e considered
unless stated in te assi"n&ent of errors%
or closely related to or de!endent on an
assi"ned error and !ro!erly ar"ued in te
$rief% save as te court &ay !ass u!on
!lain errors and clerical errors. '6a.
@1 Can the CA de"ide an issue whi"h was not raised by
the parties> Can the CA "orre"t the error whi"h was never
assigned by the other party>
A1 D#6#RA+ R8+# 1 5nly errors whi"h are stated in the
appellant(s brief should be "onsidered. %f the error is not
assigned& that "annot be "orre"ted. This is !ust an e?tension
of the rule that ob!e"tions and defenses not pleaded are
deemed waived.
#EC#;T%56 1 The following matters "an be "orre"ted or
the "ourt "an take "ogni/an"e even if the parties did not
raise them1
1.H Jurisdi"tion over the sub!e"t matter of the "aseF
<.H ;lain errorsF
$.H Cleri"al #rrors.
:.H #rrors whi"h are not assigned but "losely
related to or dependent on an assigned error.
The fourth e?"eption is taken from de"ided "ases.
A""ording to the 0C& even if you will not mention a mistake
"ommitted by the trial "ourt if su"h mistake is related to the
mistake mentioned& it "an be "orre"ted. %n the "ase of
0*EJ0R3N vs. 13URT 3/ 0++E05S
,)E S1R0 E-- F1--,G
8E5D1 An unassigned error "losely related
to the error properly assigned& or upon whi"h
the determination of the -uestion raised by the
error properly assigned is dependent& will be
"onsidered by the appellate "ourt
notwithstanding the failure to assign it as error.
Ahile an assignment of error whi"h is
re-uired by law or rule of "ourt has been held
essential to appellate review& and only those
assigned will be "onsidered& there are a number
of "ases whi"h appear to a""ord to the
appellate "ourt a broad dis"retionary power to
waive this la"k of proper assignment of errors
and "onsider errors not assigned.
The same prin"iple was reiterated in the 1==5 "ase of
10S0 /252+2N3 R3H05TH 13R+. vs.
3//21E 3/ T8E +RES2DENT
,(1 S1R0 1A5
8E5D1 4Ahile the rule is that no error
whi"h does not aCe"t !urisdi"tion will be
"onsidered unless stated in the assignment or
errors& the trend in modern*day pro"edure is to
,J
Civil Procedure Rule 51
Judgment
a""ord the "ourts broad dis"retionary power
su"h that the appellate "ourt may "onsider
matters bearing on the issues submitted for
resolution whi"h the parties failed to raise or
whi"h the lower "ourt ignored.9
+et us look at the se"ond e?"eption K plain errors.
Ahat is a &(ain error > )e"ause a plain error "an be
"orre"ted by the appellate "ourt even if not asked by the
parties& plain man> %f you will ask me& any plain error is yung
talagang obvious mistake K one whi"h is apparent to the eye.
6ow& suppose the trial "ourt made an error in applying a
law or in interpreting a law. )ut it was not atta"ked by the
losing party and it was not "orre"ted on appeal. %s it a plain
error> %t would seem no and yet that is what happened in the
1==$ "ase of 0A6T50 vs. CA G<<1 0CRA :<H.
)ut before we dis"uss the "ase of 0antos& we have to
know the basi"s. There are two prin"iples here to remember.
The appellant is the one who appeals and it is he who
will 2le the appellant(s brief and then he will make the
assignment of errors. The appellee will refute the appellant(s
assignment of errors whi"h were "ommitted by the trial
"ourt.
@1 Can the appellee impute errors or make assignment
of errors>
A1 The general rule is 65. %f you are an appellee& you are
not appealing and thus you are a""epting the de"ision. 0o if
you think the de"ision is in your favor pero mali pa rin& you
must also appeal.
0o an appellee is not allowed to assign errors "ommitted
by the trial "ourt e?"ept if the purpose of the assignment of
errors is to sustain the de"ision on another ground. )e"ause
sometimes you agree with the de"ision but you do not agree
with the reason. The de"ision is "orre"t but this should be the
reason. )e"ause a"tually& you are defending the de"ision on
another ground.
.eaning the "ourt made a mistake in arriving at the
de"ision but the de"ision is "orre"t. Yan& puwede yan. )ut if
you want the de"ision to be "hanged& then you must also
appeal.
6ow& let us go to the "ase of S.N/OS whi"h involves the
law on lease& parti"ularly the interpretation and the
appli"ation of Arti"le 1,BJ Civil Code. 8nder the law on lease&
suppose % will rent to you my land and you built a building
there and there is no agreement as to who will own the
building after the termination of the lease. 0uppose there is
no stipulation& who will own the building>
A""ording to the Civil Code& the owner of the land has
the option to a"-uire the building by paying one half of its
value. ;ero& if % do not want to appropriate the building& then
you have the right to remove the building provided you will
not damage the land. 0o the option to pay you belongs to the
owner of the land. The lessee "annot "ompel the owner of
the land to pay.
+et us go now to the "ase of 0antos. This is a very -ueer
"ase.
S0NT3S vs. 13URT 3/ 0++E05S
<<1 0CRA :<
/01TS1 Artemio 0antos et al are lessees of
a pie"e of land. They have not paid the rentals
for <J years. The lessor 2led a "ase of unlawful
detainer against all of them before the
.etropolitan Trial Court of ;asig. The trial "ourt
rendered !udgment against 0antos et al. 0o they
were ordered e!e"ted.
6ow& these people were not satis2ed. They
still appealed to the RTC. The RTC a3rmed the
!udgment that they should be e!e"ted but
modi2ed it by ordering the lessor to reimburse
the lessees for the latter(s improvements on the
leased property. 0o& a3rmed& but bayaran mo
iyong mga bahay ng mga tao. G7#A6 %1 To my
mind& that portion of the de"ision is wrong. You
"annot order the lessor to reimburse.H
)ut despite that& 0antos et al were not
satis2ed. They still appealed to the CA. The
lessor did not appeal so obviously& the lessor is
willing to pay. Although he has no obligation to
pay the improvements& pero sige na lang para
matapos naL Ie did not appeal.
6ow& the CA a3rmed again the e!e"tment.
0o tatlo na. There were three "ourts where the
o""upants lost. )ut the CA deleted the portion
of the RTC de"ision ordering reimbursement of
the improvements. %t was really wrong. Aalang
reimbursement diyan.
0o this time& 0antos et al appealed to the
0C. And they say that the portion of the
de"ision deleting our right to reimbursements is
wrong be"ause the owner of the land is not
-uestioning it& he is not appealing so why
should the CA delete it> 0o& meaning payag
iyong owner. Therefore that portion of the
de"ision of the CA where we are no longer
entitled to reimbursement is erroneous. The CA
has no power to delete that portion of the RTC
de"ision be"ause there was no appeal from the
landowner.
2SSUE1 %s the de"ision of the CA "orre"t>
8E5D1 Y#0. The CA is "orre"t. 4%t is true
that the rule is well*settled that a party "annot
impugn the "orre"tness of a Judgment not
appealed from by him& and while he may make
"ounter*assignment of errors& he "an do so only
to sustain the !udgment on other grounds but
not to seek modi2"ation or reversal thereof for
,=
Civil Procedure Rule 51
Judgment
in su"h a "ase he must appeal. A party who
does not appeal from the de"ision may not
obtain any a3rmative relief from the appellate
"ourt other than what he has obtained from the
lower "ourt& if any& whose de"ision is brought up
on appeal. Iowever& the Rules of Court and
!urispruden"e authori/e a tribunal to "onsider
errors& although unassigned& if they involve G1H
errors aCe"ting the lower "ourtMs Jurisdi"tion
over the sub!e"t matter& G<H plain errors not
spe"i2ed& and G$H "leri"al errors.9
48nder Arti"le 1,BJ& it is the lessor who has
the option to pay for one*half of the value of the
improvements whi"h the lessee has made in
good faith. The lessee "annot "ompel the lessor
to appropriate and reimburse.9 Therefore& the
de"ision of the RTC ordering the lessor is
a"tually erroneous.
4Ien"e& the award of reimbursement for
improvements by the trial "ourt in favor of
petitioners amounts to a plain error whi"h may
be re"ti2ed on appeal although not spe"i2ed in
the appellee(s brief.9
)ut the trouble is& the landowner did not appeal. %f we
follow the ruling& then lahat ng mali ng trial "ourt ay plain
error na. That is what the 0C said. )akit man naging plain
error ito when a"tually it will not -ualify as plain error > %f we
will follow that line of reasoning& every mistake "ommitted by
a trial "ourt "an be "orre"ted being a plain error.
To my mind& merong e-uity ito& eh. Analy/e the "ase. You
are o""upants for <J years and you did not pay. Ayaw mo
lumayas& bayaran ka pa> There is something wrong there
already. % think that is the fa"tor eh.
0o the 0C said that it is too unfair for the landowner still
to be re-uired to pay. %magine they stayed there for <J years&
hindi pa nagbayad. % think those are the fa"tors. 0o in other
words& e-uity bahL 0o the Court has to look for a reason to
!ustify. Ang nakita is plain error K when you do not know how
to apply the law& then it is plain error. )ut a"tually& that
should be an assigned error. %t is a very interesting "ase.
Sec. -. Promu(ation and notice of
judment. - 0fter te :ud"&ent of fnal
resolution and dissentin" or se!arate
o!inions% if any% are si"ned $y te
Justices ta>in" !art% tey sall $e
delivered for flin" to te cler> #o
sall indicate tereon te date of
!ro&ul"ation and cause true co!ies
tereof to $e served u!on te !arties
or teir counsel. 'n.
Sec. 1). Entr" of judments and 0na(
reso(utions. - 2f no a!!eal or &otion for
ne# trial or reconsideration is fled
#itin te ti&e !rovided in tese
Rules% te :ud"&ent or fnal resolution
sall fort#it $e entered $y te cler>
in te $oo> of entries of :ud"&ents.
Te date #en te :ud"&ent or fnal
resolution $eco&es e=ecutory sall $e
dee&ed as te date of its entry. Te
record sall contain te dis!ositive
!art of te :ud"&ent or fnal
resolution and sall $e si"ned $y te
cler>% #it a certifcate tat suc
:ud"&ent or fnal resolution as
$eco&e fnal and e=ecutory. ',a% R7A.
Sec. 11. E1ecution of judment. -
E=ce!t #ere te :ud"&ent or fnal
order or resolution% or a !ortion
tereof% is ordered to $e i&&ediately
e=ecutory% te &otion for its e=ecution
&ay only $e fled in te !ro!er court
after its entry.
2n ori"inal actions in te 1ourt of
0!!eals% its #rit of e=ecution sall $e
acco&!anied $y a certifed true co!y
of te entry of :ud"&ent or fnal
resolution and addressed to any
a!!ro!riate o@cer for its
enforce&ent.
2n a!!ealed cases% #ere te
&otion for e=ecution !endin" a!!eal
is fled in te 1ourt of 0!!eals at a
ti&e tat it is in !ossession of te
ori"inal record or te record on
a!!eal% te resolution "rantin" suc
&otion sall $e trans&itted to te
lo#er court fro& #ic te case
ori"inated% to"eter #it a certifed
true co!y of te :ud"&ent or fnal
order to $e e=ecuted% #it a directive
for suc court of ori"in to issue te
!ro!er #rit for its enforce&ent. 'n.
@1 6ow& how do you e?e"ute a !udgment of the CA>
A1 8nder 0e"tion 11& it depends if it is an original a"tion
or an appealed "ase.
Nor an appealed "ase& in "ase of e?e"ution pending
appeal& take note that if the re"ords of the "ase are already
elevated to the CA& motion for e?e"ution pending appeal
should already be 2led there. And if the CA grants the motion
to e?e"ute pending appeal& it will follow the third paragraph
there. %t will issue the order and dire"t the RTC to enfor"e the
!udgment.
6ow& you should "orrelate this with Rule $= 0e"tions 1
and <1
Rule 7-% Section 1. E1ecution u&on
judments or 0na( orders. - E=ecution
sall issue as a &atter of ri"t% on
&otion % u!on a :ud"&ent or order
tat dis!osed of te action or
!roceedin" u!on te e=!iration of te
B
Civil Procedure Rule 51
Judgment
!eriod-to a!!eal terefro& if no
a!!eal as $een duly !erfected.
2f te a!!eal as $een duly
!erfected and fnally resolved% te
e=ecution &ay fort#it $e a!!lied for
in te court or ori"in% on &otion of te
:ud"&ent o$li"ee% su$&ittin"
tere#it certifed true co!ies of te
:ud"&ent or :ud"&ents or fnal order
or orders sou"t to $e enforced and of
te entry tereof% #it notice to te
adverse !arty.
Te a!!ellate court &ay% on
&otion in te sa&e case% #en te
interest of :ustice so re<uires% direct
te court of ori"in to issue te #rit of
e=ecution.
Section ,. %iscretionar" e1ecution.
0. E1ecution of a judment or 0na(
order &endin a&&ea(.- 3n &otion of te
!revailin" !arty #it notice to te
adverse !arty fled in te trial court
#ile it as :urisdiction over te case
and is in !ossession of eiter te
ori"inal record or te record on
a!!eal% as te case &ay $e% at te
ti&e of te flin" of suc &otion% said
court &ay% in its discretion% order
e=ecution of a :ud"&ent or fnal order
even $efore te e=!iration of te
!eriod to a!!eal.
0fter te trial court as lost
:urisdiction% te &otion for e=ecution
!endin" a!!eal &ay $e fled in te
a!!ellate court.
Discretionary e=ecution &ay only
issue u!on "ood reasons to $e stated
in a s!ecial order after due earin".
*. E1ecution of severa(2 se&arate or
&artia( judments.- 0 several% se!arate
or !artial :ud"&ent &ay $e e=ecuted
under te sa&e ter&s and conditions
as e=ecution of a :ud"&ent or fnal
order !endin" a!!eal.
B1