What is a Supersedeas Bond?


● Supersedeas Bond is a bond that the court requires from the defendant in an ejectment case who wants to stay the immediate execution of the adverse judgment during the pendency of the appeal. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, Rules of Court)


Why is it required?


● Such bond is required to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case the appeal is found frivolous. Sps. Badillo vs. Hon. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976. April 3, 2003

● The supersedeas bond secures the payment of the rents and damages adjudged in the appealed judgment. It answers only for rentals as fixed in the judgment and not for those that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal, which are, in turn, guaranteed by the periodical deposits to be made by the defendant. The supersedeas bond and the monthly deposits are primarily designed to ensure that the plaintiff would be paid the back rentals or the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, should the inferior courts decision in his favor be affirmed on appeal. Hence, if no bond was filed or no monthly deposit was made, the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the premises. To allow the defendant in an ejectment case to continue his possession without any security for the rentals would be prejudicial to the plaintiff. He might not be able to recover the back rentals when the judgment in his favor becomes final and executory. In that event, his claim for rentals would be illusory and ineffectual. Ricafort vs. Judge Gonzales, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1798. September 7, 2004


How is the amount of the superseades bond computed?


● The supersedeas bond shall be equivalent to the (1) unpaid rentals, (2) damages and (3) costs which accrued down to the time of the judgment. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, Rules of Court)

● The supersedeas bond shall be equivalent to the unpaid rentals, damages and costs which accrued before the decision was rendered. The bond does not answer for amounts accruing during the pendency of the appeal, which are, in turn, the subject of the periodic deposits to be made by the defendant. Sps. Marciano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998

● The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to answer for the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the judgment of the inferior court appealed from, the amount of which is to be determined from the judgment of said court. Cordova vs. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995


Are attorney's fees covered by a superseades bond?


● Attorney's fees are not covered by a supersedeas bond.

The damages that may be recovered in an action for ejectment within the meaning of Section 8, Rule 72, refer to the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property to which the plaintiff is entitled which generally is measured by the fair rental value of the property. It cannot refer to other kind of damages which are foreign to the enjoyment or material possession of the property. Consequently, the attorney's fees in question cannot be considered as damages. Castueras vs. Hon. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13657, October 16, 1959

● BAR QUESTION: While the ejectment suit was pending before the Municipal Court, Juan Santos religiously deposits all current rentals. In due time, the judge ordered Juan Santos to pay all rents until he vacates the premises as well as attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.000. Maria Cruz moves for immediate execution on the ground that Juan Santos did not deposit the attorney's fees of P5,000.00 and he did not put a supersedeas bond for the award. Should the court grant immediate execution? Decide with reasons. (Bar 1990)

Suggested answer:

The court should not grant immediate execution. A supersedeas bond covers rentals in arrears up to the time of the judgment. Since there are no unpaid rentals, there is no reason for the bond. Also, the Rules do not require a deposit for attorney's fees, so execution may be stayed.


Is superseades bond required if the judgment does not make any pronouncement on the pecuniary liability of the defendant?


● The supersedeas bond covers the monetary judgment of the lower court. If the judgment does not make any pronouncement the pecuniary liability of the defendant, the bond should not be required. 


When the State litigates, is it required to put up a bond?


● There is a rationale for requiring a losing party to file a supersedeas bond in order to stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. Such bond is required to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case the appeal is found frivolous.

In the present cases, the posting of a supersedeas bond is not necessary to stay the execution of the MTC Order. When a case involves provable rents or damages incurred by a government-owned or controlled corporation, the real party in interest is the Republic of the Philippines. When the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond -- either directly or indirectly through its authorized officers -- because it is presumed to be always solvent.

Thus, it would be unnecessary to ask the NHA to file a bond because to do so would be to indirectly require the government to submit the bond. And the State is not required to file a bond for the obvious reason that it is capable of paying its obligation.  Sps. Badillo vs. Hon. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976. April 3, 2003


At what point in the litigation should superseades bond be filed?

● As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending, the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being ministerial and imperative. Hence, if the defendant-appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal. Sps. Marciano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998

● What is considered material for purposes of staying execution pending appeal under Rule 70 is not only the fact of payment but, more importantly, the timeliness of the filing of the supersedeas bond. The bond should have been filed forthwith after the municipal trial court had rendered judgment against complainants, which judgment was immediately executory, without prejudice to the right of appeal.

It will be observed that no supersedeas bond was filed after the rendition of the decision either in the court of origin or in the appellate court. The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory. Defendants in the ejectment case appealed to the latter court without filing a supersedeas bond. Such failure is a ground for outright execution of the judgment of the municipal trial court, the duty of the appellate court to order the execution of the appealed decision being thereby ministerial and imperative.  Cordova vs. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995

● In this case, the appellate court held that petitioners failure to perfect the appeal and to file a supersedeas bond warranted the immediate execution of the MeTC judgment. However, a review of the records reveals that even before petitioners had the opportunity to perfect their appeal and file a supersedeas bond, the writ of execution had already been issued. Petitioners received the MeTC Decision on October 13, 1997; thus, they had until October 28, 1997 to perfect their appeal. Petitioners Notice of Appeal filed on October 13, 1997 should have cautioned the trial court to await the expiration of the reglementary period for filing an appeal before issuing the questioned writ. However, the writ of execution was issued as early as October 20, 1997.

Public policy dictates that ejectment cases must be resolved with the least possible delay, and judgments rendered in favor of plaintiff be immediately executed. However, the rules of procedure prescribe trial courts to strike a balance between the plaintiffs and defendants right to relief. SC directed the Municipal Trial Court to give due course to the appeal and approve the amount of supersedeas bond.  The Writ of Execution was set aside.  Republic vs. Sps. Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, January 26, 2007


Where is the supersedeas bond filed?

The bond should be filed before the MTC or, where the records have been forwarded to the RTC, before the latter court. In either case, it should be done during the period of appeal. Sps. Marciano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998


What is the effect of failure to post a superseades bond?


●The foregoing rule provides that a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs shall be immediately executory. It can be stayed by the defendant only by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making a periodic deposit of the rental or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. These requisites are mandatory and concurrent. Thus, if not complied with, execution will issue as a matter of right. Republic vs. Sps. Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, January 26, 2007