Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > December 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 98046. December 14, 1992.]

CEBU CONTRACTORS CONSORTIUM COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ZOSIMO ANGELES and MAKATI LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

Castro, Casiano & Associates for Petitioner.

Virgilio A. Garingo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; MERE FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DIVEST THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. — The mere filing of the appellants’ notice of appeal did not automatically divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. Section 23 of the Interim Rules provides when an appeal may be deemed perfected. The motion for immediate execution pending appeal was filed within the reglementary period for perfecting CCCC’s appeal, i.e., before the expiration of the period for it to appeal. The filing of CCCC’s notice of appeal on May 21, 1990 did not divest the court of its jurisdiction to resolve the pending motion for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal because the court must hear and resolve it for it would become part of the records to be elevated on appeal. Since the court had jurisdiction to act on the motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction continued until the matter was resolved and was not lost by the subsequent action of the defendant (Pamintuan v. Tiglao, 53 Phil. 1; University Union of Free Workers v. Santos, 97 Phil. 976; People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715; Asuncion v. Aquino, 4 SCRA 917).


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


Before us for review is the decision dated February 11, 1991 of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 23143 entitled, "Cebu Contractors Consortium Company, petitioner v. Hon. Zosimo Angeles, Presiding Judge, Branch 158, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila and Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation, Respondents," where the petitioner sought to set aside the order of execution pending appeal issued by respondent Judge Angeles in Civil Case No. 5450.

On September 14, 1978, Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation (MLFC), now the BPI Leasing Corporation, filed a collection suit with replevin (Civil Case No. 5450 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati) against Cebu Contractors Consortium Company (CCCC) to recover on the said defendant’s principal obligation of P1,067,861.70.

After the trial, judgment was rendered on August 7, 1989 against CCCC, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby ordered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

"1) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P1,067,861.70, as principal obligation after the application of the proceeds from sale of the repossessed equipments;

"2) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff a sum equivalent to 25% of the principal obligation as attorney’s fees as stipulated in the contract;

"3) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P486,422.28 as litigation and repossession expenses; and to pay the costs of the suit." (p. 22, Rollo.)chanrobles law library

CCCC received the decision on August 15, 1989 and CCCC filed a motion for a reconsideration on August 21, 1989, which MLFC opposed, praying at the same time for the immediate execution of the judgment in its favor. On May 4, 1990, the trial court denied CCCC’s motion for reconsideration.

On May 17, 1990, MLFC filed a motion for execution pending appeal on the ground of CCCC’s imminent insolvency.

Despite the pendency of that motion, CCCC filed a notice of appeal on May 21, 1990.

After several exchanges of pleadings by the parties and flip-flopping orders of the trial judge, the latter on September 21, 1990 granted MLFC’s motion for execution pending appeal, "on condition that MLFC posts the necessary bond" (p. 36, Rollo).

CCCC filed an Urgent Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Execution (which MLFC opposed) wherein it sought to disprove its alleged insolvency by attaching an invoice or delivery order worth P1,400,000.00.

On the same day, however, the trial court found MLFC’s P2-million bond, for the issuance of writ of execution pending appeal, posted by the FGU Insurance Corporation. to be in order, approved it, and ordered the implementation of the writ of execution by deputy sheriff Honorio Santos.

The trial court set for hearing on October 15, 1990 CCCC’s Motion to Dissolve Writ of Execution Pending Appeal. During the hearing, only MLFC and its witness appeared CCCC sent a telegram informing the court that it "was cancelling the hearing" (p. 36. Rollo) and that it would file a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The trial court denied CCCC’s motion to dissolve the writ of execution.

CCCC’s petition for certiorari was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 23143 in the Appellate Court.

On February 11, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition. It found the motion for execution pending appeal to have been filed seasonably on May 17, 1990, four days before CCCC filed its notice of appeal, hence, before the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case (Universal Far East Corporation v. CA, 131 SCRA 645). The imminent insolvency of the losing party, coupled with the prevailing party’s P2 million bond, which the appellate court found sufficient, justified the grant of execution pending appeal.

CCCC moved for a reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision, but it was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the appellate court, in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in affirming the issuance of the writ.

Petitioner alleges that as of May 21, 1990, when it perfected its appeal by filing of a notice of appeal, the lower court lost jurisdiction over the case; that as required by Section 11, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the clerk of court of the trial court should have transmitted the records of the case to the Court of Appeals within ten (10) days from the perfection of the appeal, but because the branch clerk delayed the transmittal, the court was able to act on the motion for execution pending appeal on September 21, 1990, or four (4) months after the perfection of the appeal; that the filing of a motion for execution pending appeal is not one of the incidents which the trial court may act upon under Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court after an appeal has been perfected 1;and that the respondent judge’s order granting execution pending appeal constitutes a pre-judgment of the appeal itself.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We find no merit in those arguments.

The mere filing of the appellants’ notice of appeal did not automatically divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. Section 23 of the Interim Rules provides when an appeal may be deemed perfected:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"23. Perfection of appeal. — In cases where appeal is taken, the perfection of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.

"B. In cases where a record on appeal is required the appeal is perfected upon approval thereof by the court which should be done within ten (10) days.

The motion for immediate execution pending appeal was filed within the reglementary period for perfecting CCCC’s appeal. i.e., before the expiration of the period for it to appeal. The filing of CCCC’s notice of appeal on May 21, 1990 did not divest the court of its jurisdiction to resolve the pending motion for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal because the court must hear and resolve it for it would become part of the records to be elevated on appeal. Since the court had jurisdiction to act on the motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction continued until the matter was resolved and was not lost by the subsequent action of the defendant (Pamintuan v. Tiglao, 53 Phil. 1; University Union of Free Workers v. Santos, 97 Phil. 976; People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715; Asuncion v. Aquino, 4 SCRA 917). We agree with the observation of the Court of Appeals that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Firstly, the records of this case show that the motion for execution pending appeal was filed by MLFC on May 17, 1990, whereas, the notice of appeal filed by CCCC was on May 21, 1990. Therefore, when the notice of appeal was filed, the motion for the issuance of writ of execution pending appeal was already pending before the court a quo. The jurisprudence on this point is to the effect that notwithstanding the appeal having been perfected, the trial court continued to have jurisdiction over pending incidents (Universal East Corporation v. Court of Appeals, No. L-64931, 131 SCRA 646 [1984]). In the instant case, therefore, the trial court still has jurisdiction to decide the pending incident for the issuance of writ of execution pending appeal.

"Secondly, CCCC, having invoked and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by participating in the proceedings on the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal by filing their opposition/comment and subsequently the motion for dissolution without assailing the trial court’s jurisdiction, is now estopped from assailing the same jurisdiction it earlier invoked." (pp. 23-24, Rollo.)

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part, former counsel of BPI Leasing.

Endnotes:



1. (1) to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; (2) to approve compromises submitted by the parties: and (3) to permit the prosecution of pauper’s appeal (Universal Far East Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 644).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75032-33 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TIU

  • G.R. No. 85186 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 94214 December 1, 1992 - CONSUELO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO J. EVARDO

  • G.R. No. 101345 December 1, 1992 - NONITO J. BERNARDO v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 84398 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SUGURAN

  • G.R. Nos. 9627782 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 100416 December 2, 1992 - SAMUEL M. SALAS v. PURIFICACION CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992 - ESTRELLITA AGUILAR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69696 December 7, 1992 - AVELYN B. ANTONIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992 - ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 97492 December 8, 1992 - CANLUBANG SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92248 December 9, 1992 - VICENCIO T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100486 December 9, 1992 - FELIX ZEPEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 101122-23 December 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO T. ALBORES

  • A.C. No. 3727 December 11, 1992 - NELSON BUENSUCESO v. JOELITO T. BARRERA

  • G.R. No. 65706 December 11, 1992 - TOP FORM MFG. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70113 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL ELIGINO

  • G.R. No. 70481 December 11, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992 - EUTIQUIANO CLUTARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992 - PAZ A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86491 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 87781 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOYET L. POMENTEL

  • G.R. No. 90297 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PAMA

  • G.R. No. 92540 December 11, 1992 - ANIANO TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEMISTOCLES T. CASTOR

  • G.R. No. 93783 December 11, 1992 - EVANGELINE C. BUCAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93828 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO EVARISTO

  • G.R. No. 95509 December 11, 1992 - JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992 - REYNALDO ABAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 98185 December 11, 1992 - SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. v. ADOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO C. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 101883 December 11, 1992 - LYDIA MELITON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 - ANTONIO A. MECANO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105088 December 11, 1992 - BIENVENIDO OCIER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 107435-36 December 11, 1992 - SAIDAMEN B. PANGARUNGAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80161 December 14, 1992 - CANDIDA MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83030 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO MINDAC

  • G.R. No. 88915 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO IRAN

  • G.R. No. 89980 December 14, 1992 - B.H. BERKENKOTTER & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101431 December 14, 1992 - ARABESQUE INDUSTRIAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101682 December 14, 1992 - SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992 - ARACELI S. DE JESUS v. CONSUELO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 84731 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BIENDO

  • G.R. No. 94470 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED JACOLO

  • G.R. No. 95441 December 16, 1992 - CARLOS O. ELIDO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100880 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 102004 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DABON

  • G.R. Nos. 94188-89 December 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BATIS

  • G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN

  • G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992 - PRIMA PARTOSA-JO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 92144-49 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 92387 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON L. MENDOZA

  • A.M. No. 91-6-007 December 21, 1992 - REQUEST OF JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-5-009-CTA December 21, 1992 - IN RE: ALEX Z. REYES

  • G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100294 December 21, 1992 - BENITO A. TIATCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 102409-10 December 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992 - BENJAMIN T. LOONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98120 December 22, 1992 - FILOMENA R. MANCITA v. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS

  • G.R. No. 104139 December 22, 1992 - LYDIA M. PROFETA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • A.M. No. R-668-P December 21, 1992 - HORACIO M. PASCUAL v. GERRY C. DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. 65230 December 23, 1992 - PROVINCE OF TARLAC v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA

  • G.R. No. 105717 December 23, 1992 - JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992 - NARCISO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91115 December 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACALSO K. MAT-AN