AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN VS HON. ANTONIO C.

REYES
G.R. No. 145527. May 28, 2002
BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS: Bernadette S. Pondevida is apprehensive that she cannot afford to send her 3-year old daughter to school
so she wrote to the petitioner Augustus R. Gan a demand to give support for their love child. However, Gan
denied paternity of the child which resulted to Pondevida filing a complaint against Gan. Gan moved to dismiss the
case invoking that there is no cause of action because the birth certificate of the child indicated that the father is
unknown. Despite denial of his motion, petitioner failed to file his answer within the reglementary period. Thus, on
January 19, 2000 private respondent moved that petitioner be declared in default, which motion was granted. Gan
filed for a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied his motion.

On 9 June 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals imputing grave
abuse of discretion to the trial court for ordering the immediate execution of the judgment. Gan argued that he
shouldnt immediately provide for the child because under the rules, a judgment for support which is subject of an
appeal cannot be executed absent any good reason for its immediate execution, and that the judgment sought to
be executed did not yet attain finality there should be an exceptional reason to warrant its execution. However,
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.

Having been denied, Gan went to the Supreme Court impugning the dismissal of his petition for certiorari. Aside
from his previous contentions that there should be a valid reason for the immediate execution of the judgment, he
also seeks that he be allowed to prove his defense of adultery and resolve the issue of paternity by
Dioxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion for ordering the immediate execution of
the judgment.

RULING: No. The SC reiterated that 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. 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 further explanation. Absoluta sententia expositore non indigent.
The Court did not allow Gan to prove the defense of adultery since it was not even hinted that he was
married to the mother of Francheska Joy. Also, resolving the paternity by DNA Testing has no useful purpose as it is
not for the Court 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.
The Court noted that 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. 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.

Hence, the Court denied the petition for Certiorari and upheld the validity of the decision of the lower court.