Short answer. Yes, the rule provides for it. Rule 70, Section 19 says that where the defendant has been deprived of lawful possession pending the appeal by execution of the Municipal Trial Court's judgment, damages for that deprivation and restoration of possession may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court's judgment disposing of the appeal.
What the law says
In any case wherein it appears that the defendant has been deprived of the lawful possession of land or building pending the appeal by virtue of the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such deprivation of possession and restoration of possession may be allowed the defendant in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the appeal.
Rule 70, Section 19 — Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. Read the full provision →
The problem the clause solves
Ejectment judgments are executed immediately, which means a defendant can be put out of the premises months before the appeal is decided. If the appeal then succeeds, the defendant has been removed from property they were entitled to occupy all along. Section 19 answers that directly: the same judgment that disposes of the appeal may restore possession and allow damages for the period of deprivation. Without such a clause, winning on appeal would restore the premises but leave the loss of their use uncompensated.
What has to appear
Two things. The defendant must have been deprived of the lawful possession of the land or building — the appeal must establish that the possession taken away was rightfully theirs. And the deprivation must have occurred pending the appeal by virtue of the execution of the Municipal Trial Court's judgment. A defendant who left voluntarily, or who was out of the property for unrelated reasons, is not describing the situation this clause addresses.
Where the claim is decided
The relief is granted in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the appeal. It is part of the appeal itself rather than a fresh case brought afterwards, which is efficient but has a consequence: the material supporting the claim has to be before that court while the appeal is still alive. Records of what the deprivation actually cost — the period out of the premises, and the losses that flowed from it — belong in the appeal, not in a later action.
"May be allowed", not automatically awarded
The section says damages may be allowed. That is permissive language, and it leaves the court to decide whether and in what amount, on the evidence presented. A defendant who wins the appeal but proves nothing about the loss of possession gives the court little to allow. Treat the damages claim as something to be substantiated with the same care as the merits of the possession dispute itself, rather than as a consequence that follows automatically from success.