G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989
Calixto Angel, petitioner, vs. Hon. Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch XXX, and Martin Pimentel, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Calixto Angel owned land leased to private respondent Martin Pimentel under a leasehold contract. Pimentel filed CAR Case No. 1313-NV-82 (later RTC Civil Case No. 26) for reinstatement and damages, alleging Angel had taken over cultivation. The trial court ruled for Pimentel, ordering his reinstatement, payment of palay, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Angel filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 1983, which was approved, and the records were transmitted to the then Intermediate Appellate Court on January 5, 1984. However, on January 10, 1984, Pimentel moved for execution pending appeal. The respondent judge granted this motion on January 16, 1984, ordering a partial writ of execution for the reinstatement and vacation orders. Angel moved for reconsideration, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction upon perfection of appeal and transmittal of records. This was denied on February 22, 1984, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court retained jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal after the records of the case had been transmitted to the appellate court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the application of special agrarian laws over general procedural rules. Presidential Decree No. 946, the governing law for agrarian cases, explicitly provides in its Section 18 that “Appeal shall not stay the decision or order except where the ejectment of a tenant… is directed.” This clear statutory language creates an exception to the general rule under the Rules of Court that appeal stays execution. Furthermore, Section 24 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 mandates that special rules of procedure under existing laws for agrarian cases continue to apply. Consequently, the perfection of an appeal and transmittal of records in an agrarian case does not divest the trial court of its authority to order immediate execution, as such execution is specifically non-stayed by statute. The Court emphasized that PD 946 is a special law and takes precedence over the general provisions of the Rules of Court. The petition was also deemed moot and academic, as the Intermediate Appellate Court had already affirmed the trial court’s decision on the merits (though modifying the damages) during the pendency of this certiorari proceeding.