SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-69208 May 28, 1986

ROBERTO YABUT, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JOSE CALAYAG, NICOLAS CALAYAG, BERNARDO CALAYAG, JESUS CALAYAG AND ANY OTHER PERSON IMPLEMENTING THE WRIT, Respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Jose, Bernardo, Nicolas and Jesus all surnamed Calayag sued Roberto Yabut before the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations at Guagua, Pampanga. They claimed to be tenants of Yabut's fishponds and they asked that the leasehold rental be fixed, a liquidation of the harvest be made and for other remedies. Yabut countered that the Calayags were not lessees but mere employees to guard the fishponds.chanrobles virtual law library

After trial, the Regional Trial Court also at Guagua which replaced the Court of Agrarian Relations, rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. DENYING the claim of the plaintiffs that they are either tenant-lessees or plain share/ tenants of the fishpond in question and declaring them to be fishpond guards and/or overseer of the defendant;

2. LIFTING AND SETTING ASIDE the interlocutory order dated July 11, 1980 cancelling the provisions which hastily considered the plaintiffs as leasehold-tenants even before the trial on the merits were conducted, removing the custody and possession of the fishponds from the plaintiffs and returning the full possession and custody of the fishponds to the defendant;

3. DECLARING that the plaintiffs are neither entitled to are liquidation of the past harvest nor to the outright delivery of their shares to them since as fishpond guard/overseer they are only entitled to wages, commissions, bonuses and shares due to them for services rendered.chanrobles virtual law library

4. NO COSTS. (Rollo p. 231.)

The Calayags received a copy of the decision on July 23, 1984, which they appealed the following day-July 24, 1984.chanrobles virtual law library

Yabut received a copy of the decision on July 20, 1984, and on July 25, 1984, he filed a motion for execution which the trial court granted.chanrobles virtual law library

The Calayags went to the Intermediate Appellate Court to question the order granting the execution of the judgment. The appellate court nullified the order on the ground that "the motion for execution pending appeal was filed on July 25, 1984 or after the appeal has [had] been perfected." (Id. p. 191.)

The instant petition by Yabut seeks a reversal of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court.chanrobles virtual law library

The issue: whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution on the basis of a motion which was filed after the Calayags had filed a notice of appeal.chanrobles virtual law library

The petition is impressed with merit.chanrobles virtual law library

Section 23 of the Interim Rules provides:

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.chanrobles virtual law library

In the light of this provision, when was the appeal of the Calayags perfected?

The Calayags received a copy of the decision on July 23, 1984, and they filed a notice of appeal the day following, on July 24, 1984. Did the filing of the notice of appeal perfect the appeal? According to Montelibano vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 69800, May 7, 1985, 136 SCRA 294, an appeal is not perfected on the date the notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal. Applying the Montelibano rule to the instant case, the appeal of the Calayags was not perfected on July 24, 1984 but after August 7, 1984 which was their last day to appeal.chanrobles virtual law library

Yabut, as aforesaid, filed a motion for the execution of the judgment in his favor on July 25, 1984, which the trial court granted. Considering then that the motion was filed well before the perfection of the Calayag's appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction to act on the motion.chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the decision of the appellate court in AC-G.R. No. 04153 is hereby set aside. Costs against the private respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.