G.R. No. L-64931 August 31, 1984
UNIVERSAL FAR EAST CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIO CHING, respondents.

FACTS

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision ordering private respondent Emilio Ching to pay a sum of money to petitioner Universal Far East Corporation. Petitioner received the decision on January 14, 1983, and three days later, on January 17, it filed a motion for execution pending appeal, alleging Ching’s insolvency and offering to post a bond. The motion was set for hearing but was delayed due to judicial conferences. Meanwhile, Ching, who received the decision earlier, filed his notice of appeal on January 27, 1983, perfecting his appeal. He later filed an opposition to the motion for execution. The trial court eventually granted the motion and issued the order of execution on June 4, 1983, several months after the appeal was perfected.
Ching challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which set aside the execution. The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal once Ching’s appeal was perfected on January 27. The corporation elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the trial court retained jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal despite the perfection of the appeal, considering the motion was filed before such perfection but resolved afterward.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the execution pending appeal. The Court held that under Section 23 of the Interim Rules, perfection of appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. Crucially, the trial court retains jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, such as a motion for execution pending appeal, that were filed within the reglementary period for filing an appeal, even if the resolution comes after the appeal is technically perfected. The motion here was filed by the corporation within its 15-day period to appeal. The Court rejected the argument that such a motion must be resolved within the 15-day reglementary period, noting it would be impractical and could deny justice, as proper hearing and scrutiny of the grounds require time. The delay was partly attributable to Ching’s request for an extension to file opposition. The execution pending appeal forms part of the records to be elevated to the appellate court. The old rule under Section 9, Rule 41, regarding loss of jurisdiction upon approval of a record on appeal, was distinguished as inapplicable under the Interim Rules governing this case.